Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

DART HARBOUR AND NAVIGATION AUTHORITY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

FRIENDS' PROVIDENT LIFE OFFICE BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

OCEAN TRANSPORT AND TRADING (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL

STANDARD AND CHARTERED BANK BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Invalid Care Allowance

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the entitlement to an invalid care allowance under the Social Security Benefits Bill will be treated for the purposes of granting credits as though it were an entitlement to full class 1 benefits.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this small step towards meeting the case of the Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. Will he take one more step and bring in this benefit at the same time as he brings in the other benefits under the Bill? As this is International Women's Year, will the right hon. Gentleman remove the astonishing sex discrimination and make these allowances available equally to men as to women?

Mr. O'Malley: I thought that I should be unable to satisfy the hon. Lady. We may have the opportunity to discuss wider issues on Report later this week.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Nursing)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has received on the Briggs Report.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I have received representations from a number of organisations and individuals on various aspects of the Briggs Report. Mostly, opinion has favoured early implementation of the recommendations and asked that adequate resources be made available, but there has been criticism of some of the proposals.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend accept that both the training and

the practice of nurses for the mentally handicapped has increased rapidly in the last few years and moved increasingly away from general nursing? Will she, therefore, give an assurance that in legislation on nurses' training she will continue to provide for the separate registration, enrolment, training and examination of nurses for the mentally handicapped? Will my right hon. Friend further give an indication whether, and if so when, we are likely to have a separate caring profession for the mentally handicapped?

Mrs. Castle: I appreciate that there has been uncertainty as to their future among nurses in mental handicap hospitals following the references in the Briggs Report to a new caring profession. All I can say to my hon. Friend at this stage is that I hope to make a statement soon about our policy on the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in hospitals for the mentally handicapped there is a higher ratio of patients to consultants than there is in any other type of hospital in the United Kingdom? The patients, therefore, have a special dependence on the nursing staff, and if the Briggs Report were implemented, recruitment of nurses for the mentally handicapped would be devastated.

Mrs. Castle: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not at this stage wish to add anything to what I have just said.

Pensions (London Weighting)

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will consider introducing an element of London weighting to all pensions paid to persons living in the Greater London area.

Mr. O'Malley: No, Sir. The National Insurance Scheme is a contributory one, and people in all parts of the country pay the same rates of contributions to qualify for the same rates of benefit. As regards supplementary pensions, there is already some differentiation in the levels of entitlement in different parts of the country, because these vary directly with the housing costs incurred by an individual supplementary pensioner.

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I am somewhat disappointed with his reply. Does he not accept that many of the factors identified last year by the Pay Board as contributing to the much higher cost of living of people living in the London area apply equally to pensioners, particularly having regard to the low take-up of rent rebates? Is there not a case for reviewing the basic pension in this locality?

Mr. O'Malley: It is true that last year the Pay Board showed quite clearly that higher costs were incurred by people living in London, but the main additional costs arose in connection with housing and travel to work. Supplementary pensions take account of housing costs, and other pensioners can claim rent and rate rebates. Just as there may be costs which are in some ways unique to London, or which are higher in London than in other parts of the country, so it might be argued that, for example, climatic conditions in other parts of the British Isles could lead to a similar conclusion in those areas.

Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister resist the idea advanced by his hon. Friend? If he were to accept it it would cause bitterness in areas just outside the Greater London area? Will he accept that one of the principal reasons for having London weighting is the necessary use of public transport? Does he not agree that this does not necessarily apply to pensioners?

Mr. O'Malley: The extra cost of travel to work does not apply to pensioners in general, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that if any attempt were made to run a system based on defined boundaries we should run into serious administrative problems, and deep resentment would build up in all parts of the country.

Brucellosis

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make brucellosis in humans a notifiable disease.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I have no plans to make brucellosis notifiable. Cases are few and there has been no marked increase in recent years. Moreover, diagnosis is often un-

certain and transmission between humans is virtually unknown.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister recognise that if notification figures were available, figures for those areas, such as Northumberland, where eradication is failing would be very startling indeed? Does he agree that in the case of a disease such as brucellosis, which is incurable and has lifetime effects, it is important that his Department should be notified and actively involved, and that it should not be seen simply as a problem for the agricultural industry to solve by itself?

Dr. Owen: We are closely involved with the Ministry of Agriculture. The most important reason for making diseases notifiable is to enable speedy action to check their spread. In the case of brucellosis, the time needed to establish diagnosis reduces the value of notification.

National Insurance

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she is satisfied that the insurance principle remains the appropriate basis for financing the National Insurance Scheme.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. We regard the contributory basis of national insurance as valuable and important, and we are proposing no change in this respect in the way our new pension scheme is financed.

Mr. Gould: Does the Secretary of State agree that since the levels of national insurance benefits are fixed by political decision and not by reference to the state of the National Insurance Fund, and since most benefits are already financed from general taxation, the notion that we are applying the insurance principle at present is a sham and an illusion? Would it not be more sensible to acknowledge that factor and to do away with contributions, since it would save a great deal of administrative time and also avoid a large number of unfair and anomalous cases?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right to say that national insurance has never been "insurance" in the commercial sense of the word. None the less, there has been an enduring feeling in this country, particularly among the trade unions, that there is a kind of guarantee about a contributory scheme—a guaran-


tee that would not obtain in the same way if the scheme were financed entirely out of taxation. It gives some assurance that Governments will not use the lack of a contributory principle as an excuse to economise in the important matter of pensions.

Mr. Rost: When will the self-employed be invited to join the social contract?

Mrs. Castle: The more favourable traeatment that we are giving to the self-employed, compared with the actions of our predecessors, shows that the self-employed are already beneficiaries.

Mr. Golding: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention of a contributory system enables the Government to pay lower benefits than if supplementary benefits were to be got rid of?

Mrs. Castle: No, I do not accept that. I believe the way to get rid of supplementary benefits is to do as we are proposing to do in our "Better Pensions" scheme, namely, to lift the whole level of provision for security in old age.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is one point we cannot avoid in what was put to her by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould)? I refer to the fact that since we are now going over to earnings-related contributions and they are now being collected in large part by the Inland Revenue, contributors will feel that their contributions have the impact of a social security tax. Will the right hon. Lady accept that it will be indefensible to have a special rate for the self-employed which is unfair compared with that paid by employed persons?

Mrs. Castle: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are proposing to give earnings-related benefits in relation to earnings-related contributions. As our predecessors have shown, the two things do not always go together. It is a question of what are the principles and what is the level of the whole pension scheme. The existence of the contributory principle does not prevent the development of a non-contributory, non-means-tested benefit, such as the attendance allowance and our new non-contributory invalidity pension. As for the self-employed, I find it remarkable that any Con-

servative Member should pretend to act as their protagonist, in view of past Conservative policies.

Hospital Consultants

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement about the progress she has made to date with the negotiations with hospital consultants.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the state of her discussions with the British Medical Association and the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association about a new contract for consultants employed in the National Health Service.

Mr. Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further discussions she has had about the pay and conditions of service of hospital concultants; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Castle: Following my statement in the House on 13th January—[Vol. 884, c. 33–42]—an initial clarification meeting between Health Departments' officials and representatives of the consultants took place last week. I understand that the professions will be considering later this week the response I am sending them.

Miss Fookes: What is the Secretary of State doing to dispel the distrust which the consultants now feel of her?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has contributed her quota to any sense of distrust. I made a statement to the House which was widely recognised as being a very forthcoming one, to which the vast majority of the people in the country felt the consultants would respond. I then suggested that an initial exploratory meeting could be held to clear away some of the doubts and misunderstandings about our proposals, with a view, hopefully, to our going into negotiations in the joint negotiating committee. That exploratory meeting has been held and the profession's representatives will be considering my response.

Mr. Whitehead: We are glad that talks about talks are now beginning, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that


many of us believe that talks should not go ahead until the sanctions called by the BMA and HCSA have been called off?

Mrs. Castle: The consultants have frequently said to me that they did not wish to be pressured on the kind of contract they took under the National Health Service. I sympathise with that view and I have tried to reassure them. But, equally, I say to them that Governments cannot negotiate under pressure and duress, and that therefore the purpose of the initial exploratory meeting was to lay the foundations for sanctions to be withdrawn.

Mr. Lamont: Is the Secretary of State aware that many members of the public are very worried about the continuation of the dispute? What information has she about the number and proportion of consultants who are participating in the work-to-rule?

Mrs. Castle: Without notice, I cannot give the actual number and proportion. As I said in my last statement, the action is widespread but uneven in its incidence. In certain areas consultants have decided to take no action and have pressed for negotiations to be resumed. I am only too anxious for that to happen, and I hope that the initial exploratory meeting will have paved the way.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the settlement—when it comes—will be within the social contract, as at present outlined by members of the Cabinet at least, and in line with the pronouncements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past 10 days?

Mrs. Castle: The settlement, when reached, will of course be priced by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body, which in any case is due to review consultants' pay this April. The body has shown great care in taking the social contract into account in, for instance, refusing to recommend a breach of the 12-months rule. I have made it quite plain that since the body has clearly shown that it has the social contract in mind the Government will feel under strong obligation to implement its recommendations.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Secretary of State take the House a little more into her confidence by saying what response she has sent to the consultants? Will she tell us, bearing in mind that the existing contract is based on a six-day working week, that she is confident that in this unhappy matter she has behaved in a way which is consistent with being a good employer?

Mrs. Castle: I am not prepared to give the House more details, partly because the response has not yet reached the profession's representatives. In any case, I do not consider that it would help towards clarification of the issues, and, therefore, a settlement of the outstanding points, for me to disclose any of the details at this stage.

Mr. Watkinson: What has been the effect of the consultants' actions on the patients, particularly in relation to waiting lists and out-patient clinics?

Mrs. Castle: Here again, the results have been uneven, though I am deeply sorry to say that waiting lists have lengthened in some areas.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the senior medical staff at Blackpool and Fylde hospitals are deeply concerned about the effects of the present situation on patients, the medical profession and the whole future of the health service? Is she also aware of the anxiety of these consultants about the need to bring this ugly dispute to a swift conclusion by reasonable negotiations rather than by attempts to impose an inflexible ministerial decision?

Mrs. Castle: I am delighted to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment, because it provides the hope that the consultants will help to resolve this difficulty, first by lifting sanctions immediately and, secondly, by playing their part in meaningful negotiations.

Mr. Onslow: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Kidney Transplants

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her most recent estimate of the number of patients


suffering from kidney disease, and unable to undergo a transplant operation for lack of matching tissue.

Dr. Owen: On 17th January there were 873 United Kingdom patients registered with the national organ matching and distribution service as waiting for a kidney transplant. This compares with a figure of 791 one year ago.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of those 873, are Ministers from my hon. Friend's Department planning to ask Government Whips to shout "Object" when the Kidney Transplant Bill comes up on 7th February?

Dr. Owen: Perhaps I should declare an interest. I was once a sponsor of a similar Bill introduced by my hon. Friend a few years ago. My sympathy is not, therefore in question. My hon. Friend must try to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: No, you.

Mr. Lane: Will the Minister say how many kidney transplant operations took place in the last year for which he has figures?

Dr. Owen: In 1974 the figure was 547.

Benefits (Repayments)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study she had made of repayments of overpaid social security benefits by elderly people, amounting in some cases to hundreds of pounds, evidence of which had been supplied to her by the hon. Member for Cannock; and what instructions are given to social security offices on the question of obtaining such repayments.

Mr. O'Malley: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances in which repayment of overpaid social security benefits is required. Instructions to staff in local offices concerning recovery of overpaid benefits are based on the relevant statutory provisions. I have written to my hon. Friend about the individual case and issues he has raised.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the case to which I brought his attention it seems completely wrong that an elderly widow should be asked to make large repayments of this sort to cover money which had been

received mainly by her husband? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance, which so far I have not had, that in these cases the local social services officers, for whom I have a great respect, have absolute discretion whether to ask for payment?

Mr. O'Malley: I understand and sympathise with the difficulties that can arise in the case of a widow where her husband received supplementary benefit both for himself and his wife. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department does all it can to spare old people unnecessary anxiety. On the other hand, the Department and my right hon. Friend have a clearly-defined statutory responsibility to effect recovery where payments have been made in excess of the correct amount. Recovery is not enforced if it would cause real hardship, and elderly persons are discouraged from attempting to repay at rates that are clearly beyond their means.
I would not want to embarrass the lady in the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but I assure him that there was certainly no attempt by the Department to enforce repayment by a lump sum. The letter I have sent to my hon. Friend fully explains the situation and the background to the case.

Disregards

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will bring in a Bill to tie the disregards, for income from both earnings and savings, in retirement and other pensions, to the retail price index.

Mr. O'Malley: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how galling it is to my constituents and others when those who earn find that they are penalised as inflation proceeds, because what they can earn is reduced, whereas those who do not earn have their pensions increased in line with or in excess of the increase in the cost of living? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and protect those who earn rather than those who live on the State?

Mr. O'Malley: I agree that under the Tories it must have been galling for the sort of people the hon. Member described, since his Government did nothing about


it. However, his constituents will be far happier with the situation now, because since Labour came to power the disregards of both capital and earnings have been and are being increased substantially under the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We all welcome what is being done about disregards, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider the situation in relation to the average level of weekly earnings? The old figure represented 10 per cent. of average weekly earnings when it was introduced in November 1966, whereas the new figure is only 8 per cent. of the level in October 1974. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that supplementary beneficiaries are not disadvantaged too badly because the Government have allowed the average level of weekly earnings to soar at uncontrolled rates?

Mr. O'Malley: People are not disadvantaged now in the way that they were under the Conservative Government, judging that Government by their record—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.

Mr. O'Malley: It is not rubbish; it is a question of the facts, and the hon. Member should consider the facts before she comments. Increases in capital disregards represent a substantial improvement on what had been given before, and the simplification and the changes in the earnings disregards certainly give price protection. There are other priorities, too, however. At a time when the Conservative Party is complaining hypocritically about levels of public expenditure it should take that into account before asking questions of the kind it has been raising with me today.

Dental Service

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she is satisfied with the present situation in the National Health Dental Service; and if she will make a statement.

Dr. Owen: If the hon. Member is referring to dentists' remuneration, we accept that this has fallen behind during the period of statutory pay controls and we have assured the profession that the Government will accept the forthcoming recommendations of the independent

review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.

Mr. Walters: I thank the Minister for that statement. In view of the enormous increase in capital costs that the dentists have had to face compared with the much lower sums spent by the Government on dentistry, will the Minister make sure that when a substantial increase is given in April it will not be affected by any incomes freeze?

Dr. Owen: I cannot give any more reassurance than I gave in my reply, but I recognise the problems facing dentists, whose practice expenses are rising in a time of rapid inflation. Last year I authorised special advance payments to dentists to help them with those expenses.

Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word or two about the future? Will he confirm that all the signs indicate that there will be a serious shortage of dentists within a fairly short time? Can he say anything about the surveys which indicate that the nation's teeth—in particular, the children's teeth—are in a very bad state? Does he think that the dwindling number of dentists will be able to cope with the growing causes of dental decay? As trained dentists are welcomed in many parts of the world, is it wise to clobber the dentists with the self-employed tax, in the same way as other groups of self-employed are being clobbered?

Dr. Owen: We are reviewing the whole of our dental services. No one can be happy with the present state of the nation's teeth. In particular, the report dealing with children's teeth showed that there were many instances of decay and a considerable amount of periodontal disease. It revealed a generally very worrying situation. We are urgently considering the matter and are examining preventive methods of dealing with the problems of children's teeth in particular, including, perhaps, increased dental services to children in schools.

Mrs. Renée Short: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) indicated to the House yet another of the deplorable legacies left by previous Conservative Governments—rotten teeth—will my hon. Friend give


serious consideration to a matter on which he could make a decision quickly, namely, the use of fluorides by both dentists and water authorities in the conservation of teeth?

Dr. Owen: That is a controversial issue on both sides of the House, but I think it is time the House discussed it. Towards the end of the year the Government hope to put to the House a White Paper on preventive measures affecting many aspects of health. The report drew attention to children's eating sweets and snacks between meals as one the major causes of dental decay.

Maternity Grant

Mrs. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will end the national insurance contribution qualification for maternity grants and raise the level of the grant as a matter of urgency.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): While I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter, I am afraid that resources will not at this time permit us to make either of the changes which she suggests.

Mrs. Hayman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I assure him that when I have an interest to declare I shall do so. My hon. Friend cannot expect me to be happy with his reply. Is he aware that the maternity grant is the one benefit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would perhaps consider to be eligible to become that noncontributory, non-means-tested benefit? Is he also aware that the 10 per cent. of mothers who are not eligible for maternity grant are likely to be those most in need—that is, the very young mothers, who do not have their own national insurance contributions, and the unsupported mothers? In the light of that, will my hon. Friend reconsider the question of making the benefit dependent on national insurance contributions? The benefit was last raised in 1969. Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of living has gone up since then?

Mr. Jones: If I were not aware of certain of those facts before, I am well aware of them now. Both the level of

the maternity grant and the qualification for receiving it are matters which are kept constantly under review in my Department.

Mr. Boscawen: Is the Minister aware that if there is a case for giving the young unmarried mothers a non-contribution maternity grant there is an even better case for giving a death grant for the elderly who were unable to contribute because they were too old in 1948?

Mr. Jones: As soon as the hon. Gentleman rose I realised that he would point out the difficulties of deciding priorities. If we increased the maternity grant even to a level of about £30, that would cost £4 million, in addition to the £1·75 million needed to make it noncontributory. To accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on top of that would mean making decisions on priorities.

Speech Therapists

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities have applied for permission to appoint senior speech therapists; and how many appointments have been made.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I understand that about 30 authorities have made inquiries of my Department about appointment of area speech therapists; I am anxious that they should proceed as soon as agreement has been reached on salaries and selection procedures.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister satisfied that this new branch of medicine is properly appreciated? Does he realise that it helps the rehabilitation of patients? Will he do all he can to encourage its further use?

Mr. Morris: I am so satisfied. My Department is doing all it can to reach a speedy agreement with staff interests on salaries and conditions of service for the post. As members of the profession know, I have the highest possible admiration for them.

Sheffield

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied


with the development of the social services in Sheffield, in the light of the last report of the old Sheffield social services department, a copy of which has been sent to her.

Dr. Owen: This is an excellent report, which reveals pressures on the Sheffield social services department which are common to many authorities. It is impossible to be satisfied while needs are unmet; but it is clear that the former authority sought to deploy the resources available to it as effectively as it could. The new authority is, I believe, pursuing the same realistic aim within the expenditure and manpower ceiling which the Government have had to set.

Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend has highlighted the alarming picture of under-staffing and inadequate resources for social service provision that the report shows for Sheffield. Will he see to it, so far as he can, that when resources are available they are diverted to the deprived areas of that city? What has happened to the 10-year plan for the development of social services in Sheffield that was prepared for his Department?

Dr. Owen: We are encouraging local authorities to plan on a 10-year cycle, and we have retained the plans. There are very few hon. Members who are not aware of the strong pressure on social services departments. It is claims on resources, not least the problem of housing, which put tremendous pressure on them. We shall do the best we can with the limited resources at our disposal.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my hon. Friend take steps to prevent the gamble whereby the area in which one lives determines the sort of social services one receives? Will he get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take powers to put in commissioners to take over social service functions where local authorities are not carrying out the provisions of the Alf Morris Act?

Dr. Owen: The whole question of local authority independence and of putting in commissions is highly contentious. My hon. Friend will be aware of the view we took on this issue in another aspect of local government powers. We shall continue to use our powers of persuasion and to issue circulars of guidance. We shall, hopefully, rely on giving advice.

Abortion

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has had from the Abortion Law Reform Association in connection with its campaign for abortion on demand; and what answer she has given.

Dr. Owen: In common with other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend has received a letter setting out the association's current aims. It did not call for a reply.

Mr. McCrindle: Many who would not wish to see the Abortion Act repealed would nevertheless resist a movement towards abortion on demand. Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that this is a social matter of continuing controversy and that any move by the association to gain Government approval for the object of its campaign should be resisted by Ministers?

Dr. Owen: Abortion on demand is the case in which a woman asserts a legal right to abortion, regardless of medical opinion. Abortion on request is the case in which she has a right to abortion without regard to statutory criteria but subject to medical approval. That is the present situation. Views on the matter are usually expressed in free votes in the House.

Mr. Noble: Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous amount of money being made in this area by private consultants, many of whom can best be described as butchers? Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any evidence of offers made by such consultants to those who wish to open private hospitals in hotels?

Dr. Owen: We are deeply concerned about the way in which the Act has operated in the private sector. A good deal of toughening up has taken place in recent years. We have started, through administrative means, to take further toughening-up measures to try to control the abuses that were demonstrated by the Lane Report.

Mr. Grylls: In view of the rather technical, medical nature of the changes needed in the law following the Lane Report, do not the Government think that it would be better if they introduced their own Bill to make those changes, because


the changes need to be carried out quickly? Cannot the Government act?

Dr. Owen: Many of the powers that the hon. Gentleman sought, in his Private Member's Bill, to take through statutory power we are now attempting to take through administrative power. We shall leave the House to judge whether that is sufficient. We are still consulting on some of these measures. We have already announced a considerable toughening up in the private sector in the past few months.

Mrs. Millie Miller: In view of the concern expressed throughout the country on this matter, will my hon. Friend give the House the opportunity to have a debate at the earliest possible moment on the reasoned approach of the report of the Lane Committee? Such a debate might help to overcome some of the fears of women generally on the question whether abuses occur in the national health sector or the private sector of medicine.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House is likely to have the opportunity to discuss this subject on 7th February, by means of a Private Member's Bill. The Government will then give some indication of their attitude on various aspects of the Lane Report. We had hoped for a rather longer time, but the initial period of consultation has taken place and we shall give as much advice as possible on the recommendations contained in the report.

Healing Allowance

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she is taking to ensure that those supplementary pensioners who would be entitled to extra heating allowance do in fact receive it, in view of the risk of hypothermia amongst elderly people who cannot afford adequate heating.

Mr. Alec Jones: I have discussed this matter with the Supplementary Benefits Commission and I understand that a variety of practical measures is being taken to ensure that those who are entitled to extra heating additions do receive them.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is hardly an answer to refer to a variety of measures. I think that the

House will be interested to know of what that variety consists. Will my hon. Friend take into account that there are reliable estimates, such as that of Coventry's social services department, which indicate that about 70 per cent. of those who may be entitled to heating allowances are not even aware of the fact? It is intolerable that people should die of cold without receiving allowances which the House has already agreed. Will my hon. Friend specifically instruct his officials that all new supplementary pensioners must have the heating allowance explained to them, and that this must be done at regular intervals, so that no one suffers through ignorance?

Mr. Jones: No one would want any supplementary old-age pensioner to suffer from hypothermia. It is unfair of my hon. Friend to suggest that nothing is being done. I can tell her that we have the usual annual review. That is one item. Over the past two years a physical examination of all existing claims has been undertaken and domiciliary visits have been arranged when considered appropriate. A special leaflet entitled "Help with Heating Costs" was published and issued to a wide variety of statutory and voluntary organisations. The Department's regional information officers have been active in ensuring that all people interested are aware of the criteria for awarding heating allowances. We published the criteria in the Pensioners Voice. That is the newspaper of the old-age pensioner organisations. I think it is fair to say that I have justified my claim that a variety of practical steps has been taken. If my hon. Friend can think of any further steps we shall be only too pleased to consider them.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the Minister agree that pensioners who are also householders have special needs and should have a special householder's allowance?

Mr. Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman is chasing another hare on this issue, which I am sure he will pursue on another occasion.

Invalid Vehicles

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied


with the present standard of invalid tricycles; and if she will make a statement on their use value.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Invalid tricycles provide independent mobility for as wide a range of disabled drivers as possible; this is their purpose. My hon. Friend will, however, be pleased to know that, wherever necessary or appropriate, modifications to improve the vehicle have been undertaken, and that this process will continue.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much concern about the standard of the vehicles and their initial construction? Is he aware that many people, including users, those who are sympathetic, and hon. Members, believe that there is only one way in which to proceed, namely, to scrap the vehicle in favour of a rapid and progressive policy either of providing much better vehicles or of adapting existing vehicles? Does he agree that following the researches of his own Department the vehicles have been deemed by many to be hazardous on the roads?

Mr. Morris: We have published the MIRA Report. It is available in the Library. I am actively studying the accident reports to see what can be done to minimise the number of accidents. Our basic decision was for cash and not cars, so as to give disabled people, including those who are too disabled to drive, some freedom of choice.

Mr. Onslow: There seems to be a curious contrast between the Minister's performance now and what he said on this matter before the election. Until the day comes when we have a Government who feel that they can be more generous, would it not make sense to commission a series of studies on four-wheeled vehicles, including the Daf as well as the Mini, so that we can find out what may provide a better and safer means of transport?

Mr. Morris: We are being five times more generous than we were asked to be by Lady Sharp. We are about to double expendiutre on the inability of disabled people. That entirely defeats the hon. Gentleman's point. We have published the MIRA Report. In Opposition I pressed again and again for the publica-

tion of that report. I am glad that that Report and the Sharp Report were published quickly after we took office.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at the National Economic Development Council.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): In my right hon. Friend's absence in Ottawa and Washington this week, I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend took the chair at the last meeting of NEDC on 8th January, and he hopes to do so again about once a quarter.

Mr. Ashley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the country is facing a serious economic crisis the Government must take decisive measures to solve it? Will he confirm that the fact that there is a serious economic crisis is an overwhelming reason for measures to be taken to help low-paid workers and disabled people, and that they should be advanced rather than postponed?

Mr. Short: Certainly. One of the essential features of the social contract is that people who are at the greatest risk in society should be safeguarded.

Mr. Adley: On the Government's own calculations, inflation appears to have risen from 8·4 per cent. in October to about 25 per cent. now.

Mr. Rost: It is 25·2 per cent.

Mr. Adley: When will the Government, together with those who attend the NEDC meetings, finally be prepared to take positive action to endeavour to cure inflation?

Mr. Short: The Government are taking positive action all the time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the Government. The social contract is the key to the Government's efforts to control inflation.

Mr. Heath: When will Professor Frank Jones' little NEDC report on the burden of taxation on industry be published? A


summary was given in yesterday's Daily Express. Do the Government accept the conclusions of the report about the burden of taxation on British industry compared with the burden in other countries? If so, when will they act about it?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I shall find out and let him know when it will be published. On the second part of his question, the Chancellor lightened the burden on companies a great deal last November.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now pay an official visit to Rhodesia.

Mr. Short: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Lord President aware of the growing concern that the détente in Central Africa is going a bit sour with the continuation of terrorist and counter-terrorist activities in Rhodesia? Does he accept that the time has now come to consider reopening a British diplomatic presence in Salisbury, at the level that existed several years after UDI, to ensure that a British direct relationship continues or is reopened with both European and African opinion in the country?

Mr. Short: Whether we could have observers in Salisbury is another matter. My right hon. Friend has been in touch with Mr. Smith and the Africans in Rhodesia since his statement in the House. However, at present I am afraid that I have nothing further to say beyond the statement issued today on the matter.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are likely to get a satisfactory settlement in Rhodesia only by uncompromising opposition to racial policies—whether in Rhodesia or in South Africa itself—and that we must intensify our pressures on Rhodesia and on South Africa to that end?

Mr. Short: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. On the second part, sanctions must obviously be maintained.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR INDUSTRY

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to have discussions about the state of the motor industry, in view of the American involvement, during his visit to the United States of America to see the President.

Mr. Litterick: asked the Prime Minister, during his forthcoming visit to the United States, if he will discuss with President Ford the problems of the British motor vehicle industry, particularly those parts under the control of the American parent companies.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) on 16th January, his talks with President Ford will provide a useful opportunity for a full exchange of views on the economic problems in Britain and the United States which are of concern to the motor industry.

Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend indicate to the Prime Minister—although I am sure he does not need to be reminded—the importance of the prosperity of the motor industry and the fact that for every worker employed in it, 10 are employed on accessories or the servicing of cars? The country's prosperity is bound up with the motor industry, and many employees in the industry are very concerned about the investment policies of the American multinationals which dominate it.

Mr. Short: I agree with the fears of many hon. Members, but with regard to Chrysler, my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has written to the President of the Chrysler Corporation about its operations in this country. He has not yet had a reply. As my hon. Friend will know, Ford plans to increase its United Kingdom production in 1975 by about 50,000 cars.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Lord President agree that, in relative terms, ownership of the industry is secondary to operating efficiency and organisation? Does he further agree that while discussions in America about these matters may be


relevant, interesting and worth while, it is much more important to discuss them with the unions in this country, particularly the British Leyland unions?

Mr. Short: In my political philosophy, ownership is not secondary. I believe that efficiency is improved by an element of public ownership. [Laughter.]

Mr. Litterick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the interests of the ongoing alliance between Britain and the United States, it is important that the Prime Minister should at least attempt to persuade the American President that he should use his good offices to prevent the very powerful multinational companies based in the United States making decisions based on their own present-day very difficult economic situation in North America at the expense of their subordinate parts in the United Kingdom, thereby disrupting the United Kingdom economy?

Mr. Short: I am sure that this is the kind of consideration that my right hon. Friend will have in mind when he talks to President Ford. Regarding the hysterical outburst which followed my previous answer to a supplementary question, I think that if hon. Members compare the efficiency records of the publicly-owned industries and the privately-owned industries in this country they will see how true it was.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, in his previous answer, he had used the words "employee participation" instead of "public ownership", some of us might have been disposed to agree with him? Is he not further aware that all the evidence is against his proposition, and that public ownership, as such, is incompatible with both efficiency and industrial democracy?

Mr. Short: I am surprised at the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is usually so objective in these matters. If he looks at the facts and figures on productivity and efficiency generally he will find that publicly-owned companies in Britain are much more efficient than privately-owned companies. With regard to the first part of his question, I very much agree with him that an element of worker participation is desirable in both publicly-owned and privately-owned industry.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I should much prefer to hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time, if the hon. Gentleman would raise it then.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that with an American unemployment figure of 8 per cent. and with the Chrysler Corporation in the United States reducing its domestic output by at least one-third, it is quite laughable to expect either President Ford or the American motor corporations to make concessions to this country? Is it not time we started to prepare a strategy for the survival of the British motor industry, involving import controls and public ownership—otherwise, in 10 years' time we may not have a motor industry at all?

Mr. Short: I did say something about Chrysler a short time ago. I pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has written to the President of the Chrysler organisation. As my hon. Friend will know, that organisation has been one of the hardest hit by the recession in the automobile industry in the United States, but it has given repeated assurances that it does not intend to withdraw from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Huckfield: Do not believe it.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider circulating in the Official Report the evidence on which he founds his quite extraordinary opinions?

Mr. Short: I shall be very glad to publish and send to the right hon. Gentleman the evidence to support the answer I gave to a previous supplementary question.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Lord President tell the House whether, in the talks in Washington, the subject of energy will be at the top of the agenda and whether part of it will be about oil in the Scottish sector of the North Sea? In the dispute between President Ford and the Congress about United States policy with regard to the pricing rights of oil-producing countries, will the right hon. Gentleman say on whose side the Prime Minister will be?

Mr. Short: The Prime Minister, as always, will be on the side of Britain. I have no doubt whatever that energy will figure very largely in the discussions in Washington. I have no doubt whatever that those discussions will include the subject of British oil in that context.

Later—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the incomprehensible nature of the answers given by the Lord President to questions on nationalisation, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. I hope that we shall have a full House then.

Mr. Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Lord President say why he answered Questions Nos. Q3 and Q4 together but omitted to refer to Question No. Q12, which deals with the same subject?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCAST)

Mr. Stanley: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the transcript of his interview on the economy in the programme "The World This Weekend" on 29th December 1974.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so, Sir, on 13th January.

Mr. Stanley: As for most of this year one person's large pay increase is likely to be someone else's redundancy notice, or three-day working, will the Lord President clarify the question whether the Prime Minister, in his broadcast, was ruling out the possibility of any form of statutory pay restraint this year, or whether, alternatively, he was simply ruling out the possibility of a statutory pay freeze this year?

Mr. Short: The Prime Minister was ruling out any form of statutory incomes policy by this Government.

Mr. Lipton: A week being a long time in politics, is my right hon. Friend aware that I have forgotten what the Prime Minister said on 29th December? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what all the fuss is about?

Mr. Short: As I have said, there is a copy in the Library. No doubt my hon. Friend will go along there and read it.

Mr. Lawson: Would it not be fairer, as well as more honest, to tell the people of this country now about the higher unemployment which inevitably lies ahead, rather than let it take them unawares?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman will read what the Prime Minister said and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Leeds speech, he will agree that there is no lack of honesty, frankness or openness in discussing the great danger of unemployment this year.

Mr. Skinner: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what he said earlier at Question Time—about treating those in the lower income scales and disabled people more favourably than those at the top end—with the announcement made just prior to the Prime Minister's statement on television, about salary increases of up to £8,000 for judges and people in the armed forces and the established institutions? Does he understand that this is causing a great deal of worry, not only on the Labour benches but generally in the movement outside?

Mr. Short: I understand that there are a number of points of view about this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered questions on the matter. This is something which always causes difficulties for all Governments. There is never a right time to do this.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the social contract is likely to close the gap between the rate of inflation of 19 per cent. and the rate of wage increase of 28 per cent. over the past 12 months? Do the Government accept that that gap will remain for ever? Since the right hon. Gentleman has ruled out any form of statutory control, how do the Government intend to ensure that wages do not increase faster than prices?

Mr. Short: We intend to make the social contract work. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the settlements since July he will see that approximately 75 per cent. of them have been within the terms of the social contract. Of course, we are changing over from a rigid statutory system to one of free collective bargaining, and we have always said that there would be initial difficulties. The social contract is working, and if the parties opposite will support it it will work a good deal better.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not raising this matter earlier. I wish to refer to a matter concerning the rights of back benchers. Have you any powers to prevent Ministers, like the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for the Environment, making major statements on housing policy by way of Written Answer?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

BOMB INCIDENTS

Mr. Bryan Davies: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the bomb explosions in Enfield, London and Manchester.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): As the House knows, yesterday afternoon and evening several terrorist explosions occurred after a period of some weeks comparatively free from such incidents.
At about 4.30 p.m. the first explosion occurred in Lewis's department store in the centre of Manchester. Nineteen people were injured, one seriously. Later in the evening there were five explosions in London—the first in Bond Street, then two at Ponders End, then one in Kensington High Street and another in Victoria Street. One person was injured in Bond Street, four in Kensington High Street and one in Victoria Street.
Two further devices were defused in the early hours of this morning: one at a shop in Putney High Street and one at a restaurant in Hampstead.
On behalf, I am sure, of the whole House I should like to express our sympathy with those who have suffered injury and shock as a result of these incidents, and our gratitude to the emergency services for their prompt response to them.
It is difficult at present to appraise what yesterday's incidents suggest for the future, but it is clear that a period of the utmost vigilance is called for. The police are well aware of this, and I am sure that their efforts should be sustained by an equal awareness on the part of the public.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that my constituents would also wish me to express their condolences to those who have suffered injury. Although two of the explosions took place in my constituency, happily my own constituents were not badly hurt. Since a novel feature of the explosions in Enfield was the fact that they concerned industrial establishments may I ask the Home Secretary to say what measures are being taken to strengthen the security of industrial establishments throughout the country, bearing in mind the fact that the situation in Enfield would have been worse had not the chemical firm in question operated the most up-to-date security and safety measures for the withdrawal of staff?

Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says. It is not the case that yesterday's incidents were directed wholly or even primarily at industrial establishments; they affected retail shops and a wide range of public places, too. I will certainly consider whether there is any useful additional guidance which police forces can give to industrial establishments. Those in charge of such establishments should consult their local police about whether their security could be strengthened. Our desire is to maintain the utmost degree of vigilance, bearing in mind that a wide range of public targets can be selected. It is difficult to give guidance about where such attacks are likely to be made. The police will give attention to this and will be glad to give what advice they can to anyone who asks for it.

Mr. Silvester: May I join in commiserating with the people in Manchester


particularly the two still in hospital, who were hurt by the explosion at Lewis's? May I ask the Home Secretary two questions about the Manchester situation? Can he comment on the statement in the Press that there was a delay of 19 minutes between notice being given by the Press Association and Lewis's being evacuated? Second, can he say what part the persistence of hoax calls plays in delays of this kind?

Mr. Jenkins: I can give the hon. Member and the House a little more information on this. The warning was received by the Press Association in Manchester at 4.7 p.m. It was passed to the police, and the police informed the store security officer at 4.12 p.m., which I think was reasonably expeditious and would be recognised as such. The explosion took place at 4.24 p.m., by which time the management had decided to evacuate the store. So far as the police know, no announcement had been made to the public.
There is a difficulty here for managements of stores in deciding how they deal with this position. This particular management had received many hoax calls. It is difficult to strike a balanced judgment. It is easy to say, if someone does something too quickly—it happened in London recently—that their nerve has failed. On the other hand, if they act too slowly it can be said that they have been lax. This is a difficult balance of judgment.
I have given the hon. Member and the House the facts as they are available to me. I think it will be agreed that there was no delay on the part of the police in informing the store of the warning passed on to them.

Mr. Marks: May I add my condolences and, I am sure those, of my hon. Friends to those injured in the explosions in Manchester and elsewhere? Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to ensure that where there are warning systems—and I am sure that they must be provided in the future—they are understood by the public as well as the staff of establishments? Since there is the danger of panic when an alarm system sounds, will my right hon. Friend urge such establishments to do all that they can to ensure

that there is orderly withdrawal and that the public is aware of what is happening?

Mr. Jenkins: I will, through the police forces, endeavour to see that that is done. I am not sure that there has been any case of disorderly withdrawal. As I said earlier, it is a delicate balance to strike and to decide how hastily to arrange for withdrawal. I have very much in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that the police forces and the Home Office will take action.

Sir K. Joseph: Is it not clear that the terrorists can strike at any British city, after the events in London, Birmingham and Manchester? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there is any guidance which can be given to store owners and the like in connection with the use or non-use of the code in distinguishing between hoaxers and reality? Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consider the suggestion made today by the Chairman of the Police Federation, that the Bomb Squad should be organised on a national basis on the lines of regional crime squads?

Mr. Jenkins: On the last point, regional crime squads do not, of course, operate on a national basis they would not be called "regional" crime squads if they did. However, they operate with a high degree of national co-ordination. But it is desirable to achieve this, as we have already done to some extent, in relation to the Bomb Squad. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, there is already a Metropolitan Bomb Squad which works in close co-operation with the detective branches in provincial forces.
Arrangements have already been made, were made before this attack, for detectives in the provinces to be attached for a period to the Metropolitan Bomb Squad to gain experience. There is broadly the same degree of co-ordination as we have in relation to the regional crime squads, but if anything could be done to tighten this up I would of course gladly do it. I shall pursue the matter as vigorously as I can.
On the earlier question, yes, alas, it is indeed the case that attacks can be made against any cities. If further guidance could usefully be given to store owners, this would be put out. They and all


those who are responsible for running establishments where large numbers of the public congregate should keep in close touch with their local police forces as to how best to deal with this threat.
As I have said, it is difficult at present to appraise what this means for the future, but a period of vigilance is clearly highly desirable. I can assure the House that the police and the security forces will accept this and will operate on this basis. I hope that those with particular responsibility for congregations of people, and the public generally, will do so, too.

Mr. Powell: When the Minister has occasion to make a statement to the House on outrages of this kind, would it not be proper to arrange to include in the statement a reference to all outrages of the kind which have occurred in the relevant period in any part of the Kingdom?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes; of course I in no way underestimate or seek to differentiate between outrages in any part of the United Kingdom. However, under our ministerial responsibility, I am responsible for England and Wales, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not unnatural that I should answer, as do all Ministers, with regard to my own responsibility. But the right hon. Gentleman should not assume—nor should the House—that for that reason I in any way downgrade outrages which happen in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tugendhat: Although one agrees with the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot see into the future in these matters and that one must not jump to hasty conclusions, does he feel that the present insurance arrangements in this country, as distinct from Northern Ireland, are satisfactory? Would he not agree that the retail trade and, indeed, others providing services to the public have not only suffered severe losses but are in danger of suffering more? Would he not agree that the insurance arrangements in this part of the United Kingdom should now be brought into line with those prevailing in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that I would at this stage although this is clearly a matter that will have to be kept under review. The point at issue here is not, as it were, a moral judgment. It is a judgment as to whether the scale of attacks in this part of the United Kingdom is such that people cannot secure normal commercial cover under ordinary arrangements. So far this has not been the case, and the differentiation in this respect between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is based on that commercial criterion. If, most regrettably, a position arose—which it has not yet done and which I hope will not—in which normal commercial insurance for property could not be secured in this country, of course we should have to look at the matter afresh. That is the essential difference—it is a question whether it is still possible to obtain normal commercial cover.

Mr. Churchill: May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy to the victims of the bombs in Manchester and elsewhere yesterday? Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that, when next his officials are having discussions with the IRA, they convey to them the fact that the people of Manchester and, indeed, the British people as a whole will not be intimidated by these baboons and hyenas who seek to maim, mutilate and murder innocent men, women and children in the cities of our country?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that there is any question of anyone being intimated. I know that my right hon. Friend feels very strongly indeed on this matter. He has certainly not been intimated in the way in which he has dealt with this matter, which I think has shown great nerve and great judgment, in recent difficult weeks.

EEC DEVELOPMENT MINISTERS (MEETING)

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, I would like to report to the House the outcome of the meeting in Brussels last week of the Council of Development Ministers.
In the context of our renegotiation objective in this field, further discussion took place about the need for a Community world-wide aid policy, based on the criterion of relative poverty and need in developing countries, and requiring a roughly equal balance in aid to associated and non-associated countries. At my suggestion, the Commission presented a framework or "fresco" paper. The Council agreed that the Commission will now draw up specific proposals on the financial application of this. I hope that it will prove possible for the Council to take firm decisions at its next meeting in March. I gave the Council a note setting out my own views on the types and amounts of additional aid to non-associates we believe to be appropriate.
In addition, a major item of ongoing business was finally resolved. The House will know that since last June I have been urging the Community to release the whole of its original offer of$500 million towards the United Nations Emergency Measures to assist those developing countries most seriously affected by the rise in oil and commodity prices. It was finally agreed in October that a first part, $150 million, would be released.
I am afraid that, in spite of a great deal of support for my own view, which was strongly shared by some other Governments, the final decision of the Community is disappointing. A further $100 million is to be released, but there will be no further direct Community contribution, unless, by June, it is apparent that the total of the $250 million from the Community, some ongoing food aid, and bilateral contributions reported directly to the United Nations by individual member States do not amount to $500 million. That is, in my view, highly unlikely.
In the light of this, the Government have decided to make a further bilateral British contribution to the emergency measures. In round figures we have already contributed £40 million bilaterally. I am now providing a further £20 million as direct help to India, and, subject to parliamentary approval, I will provide a further £5 million to the World Food Programme, to be directed principally to Bangladesh, and a further £5 million in cash to the United Nations

Special Account for the hardest-hit countries.
Including the £13 million which is our share of the contribution being made from the Community budget, our assistance under the emergency measures so far totals, therefore, some £83 million—over $200 million. The House will appreciate that I worked hard for a different decision last week, but I am sure that it will be generally agreed that, in the circumstances of the developing world this year, we must now do all we can independently.

Mr. Rippon: I thank the right hon. Lady for that statement. Can she say something more about the factors which contributed to the disappointing result? In particular, what is the attitude on the world scene of the United States and the oil producers? Would she also agree that, while it has always been assumed that bilateral aid would supplement whatever the Community might give, we shall be in a better position to support the other countries in the Community which share her view if we make it perfectly clear that we intend to remain full members and act as such?

Mrs. Hart: As regards the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I trust that he will use whatever influence he has to convey to the other member States of the Community how urgent it is that a decision shall be reached in March on the world-wide aid proposals which I put to the Community as part of our renegotiation objective. What happens in this field of our renegotiation will depend upon its decision.
The answer to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that from June to the end of the year, and certainly until October, the debate within the Development Council concerned what was called conditionality—that is, should the Community make a contribution unless there was an adequate contribution from the oil-producing countries on the one hand and the United States on the other? The new factor introduced last week, which came as a surprise, was the insistence by one or two countries, which was slightly changing the rules in the middle of the game, that bilateral contributions should be counted as part of


the Community contribution, which was, clearly, not an acceptable proposition to several of us.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is there anything more which my right hon. Friend can do to ensure that all the Governments of the Community are aware of the urgency of reaching a decision in March?

Mrs. Hart: I have done my best in various circles to ensure that they are fully aware of that. I think that there is now a considerable amount of good will to our proposals. However, the point is that it is one thing to have a general understanding, and, indeed, a resolution in principle, but what matters in this area is that it should be translated into hard financial proposals for the future. That is the question which will be at issue in March.

Mr. Russell Johnston: First, may I compliment the right hon. Lady on what she has sought to do in trying to make the Community's aid policy more outward-looking and liberal?
May I follow up the question asked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? Do I gather from the right hon Lady's response that the main opposition to her proposals was based on a feeling that the oil-producing countries and the United States should give more proportionately than they are giving and that, unless they did so, the Community should hold back? Is that the basis of their opposition? Is she yet in any position to say, in view of the fact that there has undoubtedly been movement, as she would freely concede, whether she is optimistic that in March we shall reach a decision which can be reconciled with the Government's renegotiation objectives?

Mrs. Hart: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that was the position until October. Much of the conditionality which certain countries were imposing—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is conditionality?"] I am sorry. Brussels has a terrible effect, because one tends to use Community jargon at times. "Conditionality" means that other countries in the Community sought to impose conditions before the Community contribution to the emergency measures could be released. I sought not to impose such conditions. I apologise for the noun.
That was the position until October. Since then I think that the Opposition on those grounds has to some extent softened, but the new factor which was brought in last week, which was unacceptable, was that the contribution from the Community should not be financed purely from the Community budget but should also consist of bilateral contributions, which several countries are making in any case.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is a very good chance that this matter will be very seriously discussed in March on the basis of the Commission's paper. However, as to whether other member Governments will be prepared to reach the kind of decision which I regard as necessary at this stage, I cannot tell.

Mr. Jay: If I understood my right hon. Friend aright, is not this EEC offer of aid to the most hard-hit developing countries an extremely disappointing one? Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear whether she is satisfied with it?

Mrs. Hart: I think I made clear in my statement that I regard this as a disappointing result. This was ongoing business at the Community. There was a possibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is 'ongoing business'?"] I think "ongoing" is a sufficiently accustomed word to the House of Commons in this matter.
There was a possibility here that there could be, in addition to what each member country did towards the emergency measures, an additional contribution from the Community, which would incidentally have made it possible for one or two member countries to have made a contribution, because they could not do it on a bilateral basis for various reasons. Therefore, it is disappointing that the final Community figure is only half of the one originally proposed. However, it is in those circumstances that I feel, having fought since June with a great deal of assistance from a number of other countries in the Community and then having reached this result, that we must now do what we can on a bilateral basis.

Sir Bernard Braine: Bearing in mind the sheer gravity of the world food crisis, is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us share her disappointment at the


inadequate response to the United Nations emergency programme not only from the EEC but from other countries far richer than ours? I applaud her decision to take bilateral action, and I hope that that decision will be followed by other nations.
Will the right hon. Lady not agree that all that gives extra emphasis to the conference of Commonwealth Ministers which is to be called in March to look into practical means of raising food production in Commonwealth countries? Will she indicate what changes she thinks are necessary to the British aid programme to further that end?

Mrs. Hart: As always, the hon. Gentleman has valuable comments to make on these matters. The likely result of the Commonwealth Development Conference will be an even greater emphasis on a policy which my Ministry has always adopted in the course of the last eight months—that is, to give a priority emphasis to rural development. I hope that we shall be assisted in that policy by the proceedings of the Commonwealth conference.

Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend say what progress, if any, was made last week in preparing the Community's mandate for the negotiations with the 46 ACP countries for the convention, and, in particular, whether there was any discussion as to what would happen with the Commonwealth ACP countries if we withdrew from the Community?

Mrs. Hart: No. As I think my hon. Friend probably knows, there will be a further meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday of this week, to deal with the question of Protocol 22, which I shall be attending. That will begin with a meeting of the member States of the Community to take further the proceedings that were interrupted two weeks ago.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of overseas aid, but may I ask the right hon. Lady how she justifies the amount of £20 million to India, whose Government have been guilty of the crime of wasting the substance of her own starving people in constructing a nuclear bomb? What conditions will the right hon. Lady attach to the money?

Mrs. Hart: The conditions attached to the money are that it is programme aid—that is, it is money which will make it possible for India to buy goods which she needs from Britain. All our views on the Indian nuclear explosion are clear. However, the fact remains that India is one of the countries most hard hit by the rise in oil and commodity prices and that she is a desperately poor country. Our aid will be directed solely to helping the people of that country. I think that we must be very careful to separate the provision of aid to benefit the people of the country from the criticisms we may have of unrelated policies.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her statement, as far as it dealt with the achievement of the renegotiation of our aims at Brussels, has an ongoing, conditional optimism? To which issue does my right hon. Friend attach great importance and which issue does she think will be most difficult to resolve in the next month or two?

Mrs. Hart: I think that will be the basic question whether we can persuade the Community to share our view about the distribution of Community aid as between countries which are associated and those which are not associated. The countries which are not associated include some of the largest and poorest countries in the world. The question will be whether we can sufficiently persuade all the members of the Community to share our view. Certain members share our view. Others are so far hesitant. I do not think that I am unduly optimistic, but my hon. Friend will recognise that in any negotiations one does not succeed unless one tries to succeed.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her policy of ensuring that Community aid is given on a more worldwide basis and on the basis of need will be supported on this side of the House, bearing in mind that the first impetus in that direction was given by the summit conference in December 1972 where the principle was accepted by the Community on the initiative of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister?

Mrs. Hart: If I can correct the hon. Gentleman, not quite. That resolution was finally adopted by the Community only at a meeting in July.

Mr. Dalyell: Albeit second best, if there is to be an expansion in bilateral aid is there not a case for reconsidering the scheme of 13 years ago whereby aid is in some way tied to under-employed industries in this country, unsatisfactory though this may be in principle?

Mrs. Hart: To do that precisely and directly would obviously present many problems. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that when there are orders for British goods that follow either a parlicular aid project in a particular country or a technical assistance consultancy, it is very likely to involve engineering and the kind of goods for which we are now urgently seeking new employment opportunities in Britain.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Lady aware that fresco papers proposing ongoing procedures for infrastructure purposes can on occasions prove to be counterproductive and perhaps it would be better to concentrate on debt reduction and décollage, in the interests of multilingual jargon?

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that one of the unfortunate aspects of the membership of the Community that we inherit was the jargon that was already ongoing there.

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASH-HELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt turban-wearing followers of the Sikh religion from the requirement to wear a crash-helmet when riding a motor-cycle.
Put in another way, I seek to persuade the House to support a Bill to enable turbanned Sikhs to ride motor cycles. It is especially important to those Sikhs who wish to motor cycle to work when public transport is not available or to ride a motor cycle as part of their employment.
News of my move to bring a Bill before the House has evoked much ill-informed talk and newspaper correspondence. There must be no doubt that the long coiled hair and the turban go together as one of the five Ks; as they are called, of the articles of the religion dating back over 500 years. Definitions have been clearly made by the gurus from time to time.
There are obviously occasions when the turban is unwound and removed, but that does not mean that any other head covering may be put on in its place. It is this religious fact which I did not at first understand and which others may not have understood.
Some Sikhs have cut their hair and have thus turned away from the full faith and would not qualify for exemption under the Bill. It is because of the devout Sikh's firm attachment to the long hair coiled and the turban that it is not now possible for him to ride a motor cycle. Because of the present law, he has, so to speak, lost a freedom.
It was the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who as Minister of Transport brought in the present law. There was a debate, but the religious exemption argument was not made at that time. Some hon. Members opposed the law on the ground of individual freedom as a number are opposing the compulsory wearing of car seat belts. That debate is still before the House. I will not dwell upon it, except to say that in that case there will be exceptions on pure grounds of expediency and not on any grounds of principle. It is possible for


those who support crash-helmets and seat belts in general also to support my Bill.
I must admit that I was slow off the mark in the previous Parliament when the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) led a motion on this question. I became convinced when I realised that to uphold the Sikh's religious belief meant in reality not being able to ride a motor cycle.
As most hon. Members know, there is a long historic tradition of toleration in this matter. In battle time the Sikh has never been called upon to discard his turban in favour of the war hat or tin helmet worn by other soldiers under battle fire. It has been known for bullets to lodge in the hair of Sikhs. No one would care if at that time a Sikh was not wearing a tin hat. So far as I know, right up to the present time the long hair and turban are freely accepted in the three branches of the British Armed Services. I cannot imagine that the true Sikh is ever told that his services are no longer required in any shape or form.
As citizens of the Commonwealth, many Sikhs from the middle-1950s onwards have come to the United Kingdom. They are hard working and are winning their way in British society. In the past, because of native prejudice and misunderstanding, they have had to struggle for the right to wear the turban, particularly at work. We have overcome objections to the right to wear long hair and the turban, notably in transport in the Midlands and in London. Some factory cases have been fought and overcome. Uniformed caps and helmets are not enforced against the Sikh's religious belief.
In the Post Office and in the police forces the turbanned Sikh is tolerated. Seldom was the turban question raised by employers and workpeople until the motorcycle crash-helmet question arose.
The turban is tolerated on building sites, where all workers except Sikhs are to be seen wearing protective headgear. Hon. Members will recently have witnessed this when our new car park was being built. I have a turbanned constituent who is a steel erector. The fact is that if compulsion to wear any type of headgear came into being on building sites many would leave the building industry and do something else.
Last year, with other Members and Sikhs from various parts of the country, I saw the present Minister for Transport. We found his attitude as mulish as that of his predecessor—argumentative with no imagination. He seemed to think that the Sikh's exemption would lead to other clamours for exemption. I do not think that the House will believe it probable. No other group is distinguished by long hair and the turban and can be identified by their names.
Sikh representatives are eager to enter into discussions on style, colour and helping to secure enforcement if the law is changed. Long hair and several yards of cloth in the turban is a form of head protection and could in certain circumstances prove to be an even better protection than some ill-fitting crash-helmet.
The present Minister for Transport challenged me to show how the requirement to wear a crash-helmet might impair the Sikh's equal employment opportunity. Although my right hon. Friend said that he might reconsider this position, in fact he has not done so. I cited to him the case of the turbanned policeman. We are trying to recruit more Sikhs into the police forces. A turbanned Sikh would not under the new regulation be able to grab a motor cycle to chase a criminal. A devout Sikh cannot apply for a job as a Post Office messenger boy. My right hon. Friend replies to those two cases I have cited—"Let the Sikhs throw away the turban."
This is why I have presented the Bill. I am sure that the House would not wish to take the attitude—"Let the Sikhs throw away the turban". I recall to the House the civilised words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In 1966 he defined integration thus:
Not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.
As far as I know, no other country gives less than the fullest tolerance to the turbanned Sikh, which means the occasional man on the motor bike.
The Bill is supported by the British Council of Churches. Our country is world-renowned for its hard-won principles of religious and political freedom. The Bill has wide support from both sides of the House and groups. It would upset


no one. It would be a small step for us to take based on a great principle of religious freedom. Without it, we are not civilised and are lesser people.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Miss Janet Fookes, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Mr. Frank Hatton, Mr. Daffyd Thomas, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Neville Sandelson, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Churchill, Sir George Sinclair and Mr. Andrew Faulds.

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASH-HELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION)

Mr. Sydney Bidwell accordingly presented a Bill to exempt turban-wearing followers of the Sikh religion from the requirement to wear a crash-helmet when riding a motor-cycle: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st February and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR WALSALL, NORTH

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Leader of the House moves the motion on the Order Paper, I ask for your guidance on a matter of some importance of which I have given you notice.
Does the High Court of Parliament constitute a court of law in the context that debate, either by the House on this motion or by a Committee set up pursuant to the motion, of actions by an hon. Member which might constitute infringement of the law of this country would or might enable the hon. Member concerned to plead either autrefois convict or autrefois aquit in bar of trial at subsequent criminal proceedings in the normal course of justice outside this House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of this matter. Whether the notice was adequate, or ever would be adequate, I am not sure. I am not prepared at this point to give my views on the nature of the High Court of Parliament, nor is it for me to give instructions to a Select Committee, should it be set up. However, I do not see how this House, either by debating the matter or by agreeing to the motion, can bind any court of law. In any case, should any right hon. or hon. Member appear before a court of law, it must be entirely a matter for that court to decide upon its jurisdiction and the issue before it.
As the hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, may I add this. We have quite a difficult discussion before us, and I should like to remind the House of the rule on pages 361 and 362 of Erskine May that
no charge of a personal character can be raised
against a Member in debate
save upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect".
That remains the position. There is no motion on the Order Paper making charges of a specific nature. Nevertheless, it would be almost impossible to have this debate without referring to various allegations which have been reported in the Press. Hon. Members must confine themselves and, if I may say so with


great respect, perhaps rise to the occasion in accordance with the best traditions of the House, by being very careful about what they say. One of our colleagues is being discussed without substantive charges being made against him on a motion.

4.14 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the position of Mr. John Stonehouse as Member for Walsall North:
That the Committee do consist of Ten Members:
That Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Mr. Edward du Cann, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. John Peyton, Sir David Renton, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. George Strauss be Members of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.
I am very sad indeed to have to move the motion standing in my name, which proposes that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the position of Mr. John Stonehouse as Member for Walsall, North. This is a time for very few words. The point of order of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) underlines the importance of that: at least, it raises a rather big question mark. I therefore propose to move the motion very briefly. If it is accepted, we shall later have a full opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report. However, I shall be ready, if necessary, to reply to any points made this afternoon.
There will, I think, be widespread agreement that the sequence of events in which the right hon. Gentleman has been involved raises questions and creates a problem which the House would wish to have considered. This is essentially a matter for the House as a whole and not for the Government. I suggest that much the best and fairest way to establish the facts of what has happened and to find the right course to take is to refer the whole issue to the corporate wisdom of a Select Committee.
There is a number of precedents for referring personal cases to a Select Committee, some of them relatively recent. After careful consideration and consultation with a large number of right hon. and hon. Members, I think that this is the better course to take than referring it to the Committee of Privileges for which, of course, there is also a number of precedents.
Reference of the right hon. Gentleman's case to a Select Committee will enable him to give his own account of what has happened and will allow the facts to be thoroughly and impartially examined. At the moment the facts are only partially known, largely through Press accounts. I hope that the House will agree to await the Select Committee's report before attempting to discuss them in any detail.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is it intended that the Select Committee should sit in public and that the public should know what evidence is being given to it—which is as a court would hear evidence—or is it intended that it should sit in private? Or is this a matter for the Select Committee to decide?

Mr. Short: The normal rules applying to Select Committees will apply.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Leader of the House said that the setting up of a Select Committee would give the right hon. Member the opportunity of giving evidence to it. Can he say whether the right hon. Member has given any indication that he would be prepared to return to this country to give evidence to the Select Committee?

Mr. Short: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I quote from a letter which I have received from the right hon. Gentleman today:
I welcome the proposed composition of the Committee. They are all men of integrity, and I respect their judgment. Apart from adding another eminent Privy Councillor, I could well have chosen them myself. Although I do not intend to return to the United Kingdom, I will co-operate fully with the Committee in its inquiries, as I believe the Committee might establish some valuable points from my experience which would help to obtain protection for parliamentarians from blackmail and deliberate, calculated Press smears.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: It is, fortunately, a rare occurrence for the House to have to consider the position of one of its Members in relation to his or her colleagues, and, inevitably, as the Leader of the House has said, it is a sad occasion when the House is requested to do so.
Fortunately, in the last 50 years, since just after the end of the First World War, there have been only three occasions on which such consideration has led to the Member concerned leaving the House—two for legal reasons which occurred outside the House, and once because of a decision by the House. But I believe, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that when the House considers such a matter, it should do so on the fullest possible information. Therefore, that is the justification for the motion proposing that a Select Committee be set up to examine in detail and thoroughly, as Select Committees do, the position of the right hon. Gentleman.
I suppose that the two questions which we have to ask ourselves as a result of the motion are: do the circumstances of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) justify setting up a Select Committee; and is the timing of setting up the Select Committee right?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is not.

Mr. Heath: There are varied views about these matters, and that is why I posed two specific questions. I believe that they merit consideration.
The Government have taken the initiative. I agree with the form of the motion. It is a broad motion to consider the position of the right hon. Gentleman. There can be no implications in it such as those which, rightly, worried my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) when he put his point of order. It behoves the Leader of the House to move the motion because it refers to a member of his own party, the Government having taken the decision.
When one asks oneself the precise reason why this should be done, it is difficult to define. The Leader of the House and many other right hon.

and hon. Members no doubt feel that the real reason is the confused and contradictory position as we understand it. It is perfectly true that no charge has been preferred against the right hon. Gentleman as far as I am aware, and the Leader of the House has given no indication that there has been any charge. The right hon. Gentleman has been away from the House for a certain time, but we all know of instances when an hon. Member is away for a considerable time—for example because of sickness—and his colleagues together help to look after his constituents and their interests. In neither of those cases would there appear to be a clear reason for setting up a Select Committee.
I return to the point that the situation is an extremely confused and contradictory one. The right hon. Gentleman apparently said, first, that he wanted to ask for the Manor of Northstead and then that he did not. He said that he might come back to this country, but said later that he wished to make his life elsewhere. The position is so confused and contradictory that I have come to the conclusion that a Select Committee should be set up to examine the matter. Some, I know, will put forward the view that the timing is too soon and that we should have waited longer before considering such a motion. But I do not oppose the motion, because the House will still maintain control of the position after the Select Committee has reported.
In dealing with a matter of this nature a Select Committee is bound to take a certain time. I know from my experience of the Committee of Privileges as Leader of the House that that is often inevitable. I take into account that, as we have just heard from the Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to co-operate with the Committee but not to appear in person. That means that there will have to be a process of correspondence. This is not the first occasion on which a matter has been dealt with by correspondence. In the last Parliament, the previous Parliament and the Parliament preceding that the Privileges Committee dealt with one matter by a process of correspondence. But that process takes considerably longer, and by the time the Select Committee reaches the end of its proceedings it is inevitable that a considerable time will have elapsed.
I take into account that the House will have control of the timing when the Select Committee finishes its proceedings and reports to the House. If the matter is to be dealt with by correspondence, by the time that period has elapsed the House will, I think, have come to the conclusion that it should reach a decision.
I have no desire to indicate to the Select Committee how it should conduct its proceedings or the matters that it should consider. In view of the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, I am sure that with the legal advice that is available through its membership the Select Committee will take every precaution not to do anything to jeopardise the position of the right hon. Gentleman in the House should he return to this country and should any matters legally be raised with him.
The right hon. Gentleman has said publicly, if the reports are correct, that he will not return to this country and does not wish to return to the House or to appear before the Select Committee because he does not believe that he would receive fair play or justice here. May I say this to him—if my words ever reach him? I and many others in the House ask him to reconsider his attitude. Of course, he may proceed by correspondence if he so wishes, but we in the House understand full well the weaknesses and frailties of our fellow human beings. Above all, we understand the consequences of strain and conflicts in individual personalities. The House is widely known to be compassionate and understanding in difficult personal matters of this kind. To my mind there is no question of the right hon. Gentleman not receiving every consideration by the Select Committee, if it is set up, and afterwards by the House, and I believe that he should have no justifiable fears about receiving fair play and justice in this difficult matter.
If the right hon. Gentleman has come or comes to the conclusion that he wishes to start life afresh either in this country or elsewhere, surely, on consideration, he would prefer to do so after personally clearing up these matters once and for all with his colleagues in the House. Surely he would prefer to start again with a mind which is clear of the cares

and the conflicts of which he has spoken in Australia. I very much hope that that will be his decision after he has considered the matter.
I support the Leader of the House, and ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to do so, although, of course, it is entirely a matter for them. I support the Leader of the House in setting up the Select Committee and very much hope that the right hon. Member will decide to co-operate by coming back to his colleagues to enable these matters to be disposed of in a way which is acceptable to the House.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: After the speech which has been made by the Leader of the Opposition there is little I wish to add. I should like to emphasise and agree with everything he said. Such episodes as this are fortunately rare, and it is not a happy episode because we are discussing one of our colleagues. Since 1927 there have been only four references of matters relating to colleagues in the House to a Committee of this sort.
I would not presume to give advice to the Select Committee save that, as we are setting it up, it might perhaps be appropriate to indicate how we hope it will approach its task. I say that as one who has complete confidence in the right hon. and learned Members who have been selected to serve on the Select Committee. I hope that the members of the Select Committee will proceed with extreme caution, because collectively we are considering one of our colleagues and by doing so we shall create a precedent for the future. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is a colleague in respect of whom no offence has been charged; still less has he any conviction.
It is true that a charge or conviction has not always been necessary for action to be taken. As far back as 1856 when a true bill had been found in the case of James Sadleir in respect of fraud, the House refused to take action because it wished matters to proceed along normal lines. Only when, a year later, the Crown Solicitor and the officers of the constabulary established that they had made efforts to apprehend him and bring him to trial and had failed did the House of Commons bring action and expel him.
There are those who say in the somewhat old-fashioned sounding phrase that


Members can be investigated if their conduct is "unbecoming the character of an officer and gentleman "—which sounds extremely nineteenth century. That is the view of "Erskine May". But of the two cases that are recorded, those of Colonel Cawthorne in 1767 and Mr. Verney in 1891, the first had already been convicted of embezzlement by court-martial and the second had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment by the Central Criminal Court. Although it is not necessary for charges to have been preferred or brought, that has been the usual practice.
I make only one plea: that when the Select Committee proceeds the standard of proof it demands will be no less strict than that which would apply in a court of law. Clearly, what has been reported in newspapers is not evidence, and no body of men and women have less need to be convinced of that than do hon. Members.
There are matters which have been mentioned and allegations which have been made, and I shall go into none of them. If those matters are to be investigated, they must be proved by evidence adduced either by individual witnesses coming forward or by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North writing or, if it be thought proper, perhaps even by the taking of evidence on commission in Australia.
I have every confidence in the members of the Committee who have been selected. I am fortified by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself appears to show a confidence in those of our colleagues who are on the Committee. I ask them to remember that they will be creating a precedent in which we in this House shall sit in judgment of one of our colleagues. That being the case, whether it be in adducing evidence that comes before the Committee or the whole way in which its members comport themselves, they must be no less strict and determined to see that justice is done than would any court of law.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I believe that the motion—and this applies to its timing and presentation by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—is the best way in which to deal with what to us all is a distressing situation. I should like to echo what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of

the Opposition about my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). I have made similar utterances, but I hope that full cognisance will be taken of the way in which the matter was put by the Leader of the Opposition.
The events involving the right hon. Member for Walsall, North leading up to the consideration of today's motion, have possibly plucked at the most human emotions ranging from grief and anger to shock, amazement and frustration.
In the early days of this bizarre chronicle of events it was inevitable that conjecture, allied to premises real and imaginary, would play a significant rôle. When, in the language of journalese, the story "broke" and rapidly developed, for those who at some time had worked for or with the right hon. Member in one capacity or another it became a period of anguish and bewilderment. Neither was it an easy period for the Press, which had a duty and responsibility to fulfil. Regrettably, in some instances there was occasional tarnishing of standards, but the issue was fraught with such possibilities. Ultimately, for some of us, a situation had been reached where, in Burke's words
An event had happened upon which it is difficult to speak and impossible to be silent.
It became necessary not only to show that innuendo and rumour could conceivably and ultimately receive the accolade of truth but that at the time they were merely innuendo and rumour.
Furthermore, there was a history of public endeavour on the part of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North wnich belonged very much to the honourable and credit side of what was being reported. In this connection the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ended serious and distasteful speculation and brought much-deserved comfort to the mother and family of the right hon. Member. There is also marked appreciation for the manner in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has handled this worrying and almost unique situation—with coolness coupled with fairness, and also with determination, patience and throughout with the quality of fair play.
Therefore, I support the motion as the best means for the House to be able to reach a just, honourable and informed


determination. I hope that we shall take as our guidelines the words of that great lawyer and advocate of the eighteenth century, John Philpot Currun, who said:
I know that truth is to be sought only by slow and painful process. I also know that error is in its nature flippant and compendious. It hops with airy and fastidious levity over proofs and arguments—and perches on assertion which it calls conclusion.
I hope that we shall accept the motion because I believe that, whatever the outcome of the examination and the searchings of the Select Committee, in the interests of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North and his constituents and all those who have worked with him and assisted him in the past, his family, and, indeed, for the people of this nation and for the honour of the House of Commons, this is the best way to deal with the situation. I trust that detailed and careful inquiry will ascertain the true situation and that innuendo and rumour will in the end give way to the triumph of truth. I hope that justice may be done in a manner that is honourable, and that in this way the great traditions of the House of Commons will be upheld for our nation and for all the world to see.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was said by Mr. Speaker at the beginning that this debate was a difficult one. There cannot often have been a more severe understatement, for this debate in many respects goes to the root of the independent position and right of individual Members of the House and of the sovereignty and independence of the House itself.
It is true that in form we are discussing only a motion to set up a Select Committee, but we would be humbugging ourselves if on that ground we pretended that in deciding to do so we were not taking a great decision which, as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, may well create an important precedent.
We should not be considering whether to set up a Select Committee if we did not think that it was in present circumstances within contemplation that the House would wish to take steps in regard to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)—to be more blunt about the matter, to take steps

which would cause him by the action of the House to cease to be a Member of the House. Therefore, it is the question whether such steps ought to be in contemplation in present circumstances that must underlie the decision of the House on the motion.
Indubitably, this House is the arbiter of the behaviour of its Members as Members of the House. It is the guardian of its privileges not only against the outside world but also where those privileges are in any way damaged and when its respect is in any way insulted by one of its Members. But the privileges of this House and the contempts against which it has the right and duty to protect itself are not something at large. They are privileges and contempts fixed and determined by precedent. We cannot suddenly invent new privileges, nor can we suddenly discover that behaviour which previously was not a contempt to the House has suddenly become a contempt of the House and, as such, censurable and punishable. Like our privileges, like our own existence, the right to defend them depends on precedent.
Whatever may have been the case in earlier centuries, within relevant modern times there is no requirement upon a Member of this House of attendance at the House. It has never within relevant time been considered to be a ground for expulsion from this House that an hon. Member has ceased to attend the House. I know that quotations may be found on this point, that antiquarians may discover instances, where in former centuries the attendance of Members has been required upon penalty. But it would be as proper for us to appeal to those antiquarian data as it would be constitutional for Her Majesty to refuse her Royal Assent to a Bill passed by both Houses on the ground that Queen Anne did so in 1707.
The fact we have before us is that, rightly or wrongly, absence from the House is not a ground for a Member being expelled from this House or ceasing to be a Member of it. It so happens, though I make no special point of it, that another hon. Member in this Parliament has been absent from the service of the House longer than the right hon. Member for Walsall, North. We do well, therefore, to consider what we do, if it is on grounds of absence, however


protracted, that it might be in our contemplation to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of his seat.
It might be said that we have a duty in this House to have regard to the relationship between the House and the electorate, to the duties of hon. Members to their constituents. I agree. Of course, it is implicit in the character of a Member of Parliament that he attends the House to represent his constituents, and incidentally, that he takes such steps as may properly render him available to his constituents to know what is their mind. But there is a proper way to reform any abuses which the House may think exist in such a matter. If requirements are to be imposed upon hon. Members in the public interest, in the interest of the principle of representation, they cannot be imposed by an extension of the notion of contempt of this House. They cannot be imposed by the unilateral private action of this Chamber. They can be imposed only by law.
If we think it appropriate that those who are elected to this House should perform, as a condition of belonging to it, certain services to the House and their constituents, let us lay that down, as we lay down other requirements for being Members of this House, in the proper way—by law.
If we do not, the most grotesque results will follow. If we are to cause an hon. Member to cease to be a Member of this House because of his absence, the House will find that it will have to inquire jealously into the circumstances and background of every protracted absence of hon. Members. It would have to know whether the absence was approved by the hon. Member's constituents and whether he had indicated at the election that he intended to be absent. We enter an absolute maze when we attempt in this way to substitute a decision of this House to discipline its own Members for what, if it is right at all, ought to be a matter of law.
It may be said that in this case we are not concerned with simple absence. I do not know what would be the meaning of "simple absence"; for every case of absence is in its way unique. There has been mention of an hon. Member being absent by reason of sickness; but there is sickness and sickness, and there are causes of different kinds which are very

difficult to classify and determine. As I was saying, it is said that this case is not only one of absence, however complex and difficult the notion of absence may be if it is to be defined. It is said that the fact of absence is somehow cumulated or aggravated in this case by what are alleged to be the actions and what are to alleged to be the offences of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North.
It has been given as a ground for setting up this Committee that we should determine through a Select Committee what those actions are. If those actions were simply actions which went to the respect of this House, actions which if proved would constitute a contempt of this House, then it would be right and proper that, as with other matters of privilege, they should be investigated and reported upon; for there exists no other authority or court to judge contempts against the House. The moment we permit another court to judge contempt against the House, we become subordinate.
But the nature of these actions—if not all of them, then the most part—is that, if they are as alleged, they are or might be offences against the law of the realm. Here, too, precedent is very clear. I accept that there is a certain penumbra around this to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North referred; but broadly speaking, there are certain offences and circumstances in which, when hon. Members have been duly tried by process of law and convicted, they are removed from membership of this House. However, the relevant condition there is "duly tried and convicted by courts of law". We have no right to say that this is a case in which that is inconvenient, that it is a case in which it does not look as though that will happen or in which we do not see how it can happen, and that therefore this House is justified in breaching one of the most important constitutional barriers.
Of course, there have been times in the past, though they have been evil times for this House, when the House has purported to act as a court of law, to judge offences against the law of the land; but I think it has for long been accepted that the judgment of offences against the law of the land or of actions which might be such offences belongs to the courts and not to this House. That is


why it was a cause for great anxiety when the Leader of the House said that it would be the business of the Select Committee not only to advise the House on the right course to take but to "establish the facts". That was underlined when the right hon. Member for Devon, North expressed the hope that the Select Committee would require proof, procedure and evidence "no less strict than in a court of law". For, indeed, the Select Committee would be acting in supersession of a court of law and would be arrogating to this House and to a Committee of this House the function, long wisely forsworn, of determining the facts of a case where those facts bear upon the commission of an offence against the law.
The Leader of the Opposition put before the House the question whether the motion is timely. There may come a time when the setting up of this Select Committee will be appropriate, when it will involve none of the evil precedents which it inevitably brings with it at present. All that I have said about the motion is related to circumstances as they stand.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the time may arrive, does he not agree that in the context of what he was saying it could only be after the next election?

Mr. Powell: I do not know when the time may be, or how circumstances may change. What I know, and what I submit to the House, is that in present circumstances to proceed with the motion, knowing what it implies for the course of action in contemplation by the House, is a dangerous incursion upon the rights of individual hon. Members and a dangerous breach of at least two constitutional principles as to the functions of the House.
That is why I appeal to the Leader of the House to take back the motion for the time being, because to persist with it at this time brings with it the risk of creating for the future precedents the consequences of which we cannot foresee, but which could be damaging and even irreversible.

Mr. Heath: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I make it clear that I do not accept the implications

on which he based his speech? I do not accept that there is any implication in the motion or in anything I said in my speech. But I do not see any other way in which a matter which, we must say quite frankly, many people outside regard as a public scandal can be clarified and dealt with.
If the Select Committee were to say everything the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I for one should say that it had put forward substantial arguments why the situation should remain as it is. Therefore, I must make it absolutely clear that I do not accept the allegation that there are implications in the motion that the House will expel this man.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman, in his intervention, has made exactly my point, because he included the words "and dealt with". The whole meaning of the motion is that in certain circumstances as things stand, and upon certain reports from the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, North would have to be dealt with.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Geoff Edge: As one of the three Members representing the town of Walsall in the House, I support the setting up of the Select Committee. I hope that the motion will be accepted, because the issue that has arisen in respect of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) cannot be ignored by the House.
The actions of any hon. Member reflect upon the whole of public life. The great tragedy of the circumstances surrounding the actions of the right hon. Gentleman is that there has been far too much speculation and that far too little evidence has been produced of precisely what has occurred.
Having dealt in "surgery" with many of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, I know very well that they feel a sense of bewilderment moving through disillusionment towards outrage at what has happened. Their feeling of anger and disillusionment will not go away if the House simply ignores the problems which have arisen because of the right hon. Gentleman's actions. Those constituents have repeatedly told me that they need an active Member of Parliament.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, it is not a


rule of the House that a Member should attend. It is not a rule that he should be a good constituency Member or that he should speak in a certain number of debates. If such criteria had existed, the right hon. Member for Walsall, North could have been argued to have satisfied all of them up until his disappearance.
The point is that the right hon. Gentleman has taken actions which give grave cause for concern. As far as we can ascertain, he has deliberately gone to two widows, Mrs. Markham in my constituency and Mrs. Mildoon in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of Mr. Speaker's injunction at the beginning of the debate is what the hon. Gentleman saying in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I see nothing to be gained for the House by reciting what the Press has told us. I hope that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge) will bear in mind Mr. Speaker's words.

Mr. Edge: I was anxious to correct a statement put around by the Press that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North used the names of his own constituents. It should be on public record that that is not so.
The allegations are serious and need to be examined in full by a Select Committee. I do not wish to prejudge the Select Committee's findings. It could well tell the House that either on the grounds put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South, because of illness or for other reasons, the House should take no action against the right hon. Member for Walsall, North. I shall accept the findings of the Select Committee because I have the greatest respect for the proposed membership. They are Members who are very well versed and well experienced in the practices of the House.
We cannot continue with the present situation. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North is in Australia, allegations appear in the Press—one of which I have demonstrated is inaccurate—and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents are left in a state of complete uncertainty as to whether they have a Member who

will return to the House to be active or a Member who intends to resign. For the House to take no action in such a situation of uncertainty would be undesirable.
It is time for a Select Committee to investigate the full details of this confused affair and then report to the House whether any breach of the procedure of the House has taken place. There may well be matters which give concern to the Select Committee but which are in no sense outside the law of the land, being merely outside the conventions of the House. I should be disturbed if the Committee involved itself deeply in matters which are properly the concern of the courts. Its job is to establish the facts and consider behaviour which is properly the concern of the House.
Therefore, I should welcome the setting-up of the Select Committee. I am sure that all the people in Walsall, North will—

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, can he distinguish between matters which he thinks are the proper concern of the House as regards the conduct of hon. Members and those which are not? This is an important consideration to be borne in mind.

Mr. Edge: It is really a matter for the Select Committee, but in my view it would be improper for the Select Committee to pry into the business affairs of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that that is a matter of concern for the House. If it is a matter of concern for anyone, it is a matter of concern for the courts.
I consider that the allegations of the visits to two widows at a distressing time for them is a matter of concern. It is a matter of concern to my constituents. If Conservative Members dared to speak to my constituents—I speak to them every weekend—they would be able to judge their anger and reaction. They would be able to judge their reaction on, as they see it, the failure of the House to take action.
What does the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) want me to do? Does he want me to go to the widow in my constituency and tell her that the House is not concerned with what might have


occurred? Does he want my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to go to the widow in his constituency and tell her that the House is not concerned with what occurred affecting her?
If the Select Committee decides that the right hon. Gentleman has used the name of the widows' husbands in the way alleged, that is properly a matter of concern for the House and one which will bring the House into disrepute. That is why the Select Committee needs to consider that matter. I do not suggest that such behaviour is actionable in a court of law, but it is a matter of concern for hon. Members.
If we allow such behaviour to go unexamined and the facts of the situation to go unestablished, we shall bring the House into disrepute and add fuel to the fire of all those who already hold Parliament in contempt. That would be regrettable. That is why I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. I look forward to the careful and balanced report which I am sure it will produce.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I very much agree with the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I knew the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) a bit but not very well. I merely regarded him as a colleague sitting on the Labour benches. What I feel most strongly is that the House is acting far too quickly. I ask the Leader of the House to think again and perhaps to take the motion off the Order Paper for some weeks.
I do not know what has been happening or what the right hon. Member for Walsall, North has been doing in Australia. We have only the newspaper reports, and they may all be wrong. I do not know the exact position, but it seems that there is a possibility of criminal charges. In any event, I want to wait because I do not believe that the House should take action at the moment. We would be well advised to wait to see whether criminal charges are laid and convictions made.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: So far the debate has shown a deep division of opinion and some serious argu-

ments on both sides of the House. I think that the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) were powerful and appealing. I am bound to say that I have not such powerful reasons in support of the motion but will support it.
The difficulty the House now finds itself in is that we have a Member who has not been found guilty of any offence. That has been the precedent for expulsion. The right hon. Member for Down, South clearly points the way by saying that absence is not the means by which we should establish a precedent for expulsion. The issue that now faces the House is whether we should take action. Such action might not be felt wise and it might not fit in with precedents but this is a matter of great concern outside the House. That is the position not only because the Press have made comment but because of the statements that have come from the right hon. Member for Walsall, North. His statements and his letters to the Prime Minister and to other people have established the points at issue with which the House should concern itself.
I shall make one or two points that I hope will be considered by the Select Committee. I have confidence in the way that the Select Committee will consider these matters. At this stage it does not have terms of reference but the motion leaves it open to the Committee to make its own decisions. It is open to the Committee to interview the right hon. Member for Walsall, North as a means of ascertaining the truth of the situation. I hope that by taking that action we shall be able to have an impartial opinion.
One issue of the utmost importance is that there are several issues which the Select Committee can also consider. One such issue is the interests of Members outside the House. That includes matters outside a Member's parliamentary duties. It is clear that there are issues involved arising out of the pursuit of employment outside parliamentary duties and that a Member of Parliament has been subjected to pressures which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, include blackmail. That is also clear in the letter that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the House. As was said at the opening of the debate, the


right hon. Gentleman is prepared to advise the House of those pressures.
It would, of course, take a considerable time for a prosecution of any nature to be entered into and completed in the courts if warranted. In the meantime, the country will be concerned that the House takes no action. It is important that it should take action. I hope that the pressure of blackmail will be seriously considered by the Committee. That does not necessarily arise or reflect upon the issue concerning the right hon. Member for Walsall, North but it is relevant to the general trend of influence outside the House.
I wished to make that point because it was reported in The Times. on Saturday that there is now a group of people who are making it a business proposition to inquire into the business background and other interests of Members of Parliament and to make that information available on a commercial basis so that others can add to the sort of pressures which the right hon. Member for Walsall, North has described as a blackmail.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what he is saying is outside the terms of reference of the Select Committee and the motion now before us. The motion is:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the position of Mr. John Stonehouse…".
The matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are of great relevance in another context but they do not fall within the motion that we are now discussing.

Mr. Prescott: I think that my point has been strengthened by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Cardinal to the position of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North is the allegation he makes that the actions that he took arose out of certain pressures. I do not know whether those actions were illegal. That is a matter that will be pursued outside the House. What is cardinal to the position of the right hon. Gentleman is that pressures built up on him arising out of employment other than his parliamentary duties. I hope that the Select Committee in considering this matter will look seriously at the right hon. Gentleman's allegations as I believe it is an important matter. It is particularly

important as there are organisations outside the House which are prepared to use such matters to undermine the reputations of Members of Parliament and, inevitably, the credibility of the House.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: One cannot be a Member for 10 years without having great regard for the powers of oratory and eloquence of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). However, our respect and regard for those powers should not prevent us challenging the assumptions that he made in his speech today if, as I believe it to be the fact, the right hon. Gentleman's speech clouded the issue which we are considering and took us away from facing the real question of how the House should now deal with this matter.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's words that the wording of the motion inevitably creates and raises imputations against the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse).
We cannot discuss the motion in isolation when considering the purpose for which the Select Committee is being set up and its possible effect. To a certain extent it is unreal to attempt to conduct the debate without some consideration of matters which have been reported in the Press and referred to outside the House.
I do not believe that it is right to say that to comment in any way on this issue is necessarily to pre-judge the result of the Select Committee's proceedings. What we should attempt to do is distinguish between what one might call merely newspaper gossip and that which, although reported in the Press, appears to have independent support from outside—namely, either statements made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North himself or other proved facts.
Clearly, the only purpose of setting up a Select Committee is to show that we face the fact that there is, in the view of the House, as far as the right hon. Member is concerned, a case to answer, although it may well be that the result of the Committee's deliberations is that the case is not shown to be proved. Without using some of the emotive words used by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge), I want to set out what I consider to be the basis of the case on which the Select Committee should be


formed. There are certain facts, each of which, although not necessarily indisputable and not necessarily undeniable, clearly creates the framework of a basic case.
It appears from statements made by the right hon. Member himself that he has assumed the identities of other people for the purpose of obtaining passports and has pursued that attempt to success. He achieved passports in the names of people other than himself, on which he then chose to travel across the world. On the face of it, there appears to be an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence.
Secondly, it would appear, on the evidence as we know it, for reasons which at the moment do not concern me, that the right hon. Member appears to have chosen to fake his own death with the purpose of disappearing. That probably is no criminal offence. Thirdly, we know that, after his appearance in Australia, he has made certainly the most contradictory statements—if they be contradictory I think that they are nevertheless clear—to the effect that he has no desire to return to this country and proposes, according to his own words and actions, to remain resident in Australia.
It has been said that if it be right, as appears from the evidence, that the right hon. Member has obtained passports in false names, he has committed the act, presumably, of either forgery or perjury and, therefore, it is a matter for the courts. Were the right hon. Member present in this country and allegations of this kind were being made in this House, I would agree that it would be a matter for the courts and should be dealt with by the courts. But we cannot ignore the fact that the right hon. Member himself has chosen, by his own volition, to remove himself from the jurisdiction of our courts, and, therefore, we cannot say that, although part of the acts he has done may, if they prove to be true, be a criminal offence, since he has taken himself out of the jurisdiction of our courts there is no action that this House can take. That would be an absurd position.
But, it will be said, there is power of extraditing and bringing back to the courts of this country to stand trial a person who is apparently alleged to have

committed a criminal offence in this country. That is true. But one cannot ignore the fact that, whilst the technical power to extradite and, perhaps, to bring a person to trial, may exist, for many reasons there may not be the wish to carry out these extradition proceedings at this time.

Mr. Hooson: I am with the hon. and learned Gentleman so far, but there is the question of the timeliness of the motion. Should we not first investigate whether the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) should be extradited? If that were to be done, everything would follow in logical order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were right, and in practical terms we could not think that the right hon. Member would be returned from Australia, there would be greater strength in his case. But what reason have we to think that if the normal proceedings for extradition were to be taken they would not succeed?

Mr. Carlisle: Extradition is a two-way process. It is not only a question of starting extradition proceedings in this country. Equally, a decision whether to extradite rests in Australia. One cannot be sure what the outcome will be of extradition proceedings.
I have deliberately tried to draw a distinction between what might be called gossip-rumour, on the one hand, and proved or apparent fact on which a case can be based, on the other, and have pointed out that there may be reasons why at this moment there may not be anxiety to extradite.
I was not going to say this, but, since the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has mentioned the point, I suggest that one must remember that in law one cannot in the courts of this country ever charge any person for any offence on which he has not been extradited from another country, if one does extradite him. At a time when—I do not prejudge in any way—major Department of Trade inquiries are going on into companies with which the right hon. Member was involved, there may be very good reasons why the authorities do not wish to use their power to extradite at this moment and thereby close the door at all times to any proceedings they might wish to bring.

Mr. Alan Clark: Surely the question of extradition need never arise, because the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) owes the security of his position in Australia, as I understand it, to the fact that his illegal entry there was, it was later discovered, legal because of his privileged status as a Member of this House. It is his exercise and enjoyment of that privilege which affords him security of domicile in Australia. Were that to be properly considered by a Select Committee, the question of extradition need never be followed up.

Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that point. I will leave the point about criminal charges and turn to the second argument, which is one of the bases of the case to answer—the apparently voluntary absence of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North from the House.
I agree, of course, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South that absence in itself—"simple absence" was the phrase—has never been, or necessarily should ever be, a right to deprive a Member of his membership of this House. But one has to look at the circumstances of the absence. In this case, there is, on the face of it, absence from the House combined with a clearly stated determination not to return to the House, and surely in the circumstances the House, if it is to have any power, has the right to say that it has to give thought and consideration to the rights of any Member of the House to represent those who elected him in the belief that he was proposing to carry out his responsibilities as a Member.
There is the further consideration, certainly on some of the statements eminating from the right hon. Member, that it would appear that he has chosen to use his membership of this House not for the purpose of pursuing the views of his constituents but for the purpose of giving himself a privileged position towards obtaining his ability to stay in Australia, and, therefore, for the purpose of not intending to come back as a Member of this House.
I believe that this House is right to set up the Select Committee to inquire into those facts. It assumes, to my mind, a case to answer, but it is a case which has been created and already exists. As

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says, let us be realistic. It is thought of by many outside the House as a form of public scandal. It is a case which should be inquired into. The House will then have the opportunity, having heard the Select Committee's views, to decide at that stage what action to take.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, absence through illness is no justification for taking steps. He said, rightly, that there are various types of illness. It is no prejudging of that issue, any more than it is a prejudging of any other issue, to set up the Select Committee, as it is issues of this kind which are matters which will have to concern that Committee in its deliberations.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The House has every right to be jealous of its good name. If we acted upon the advice of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and left this matter in abeyance, presumably he meant that it would thereby be solved when the next General Election came around because the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) would then cease to have the protection that he now has in Australia and we would probably be able the better to deal with this case.
But the one thing that we must try to understand and appreciate is the feeling of the general public. I am certain that they will come to the conclusion that this place is the best club in the world and that once again we are trying to cover up, to shove matters under the carpet and to conceal something which does none of us any good and which, unless it is dealt with, is bound to leave some further mark upon what I would call the general integrity of this House. It is the integrity of the House which is suffering in these circumstances. It affects every Member; some of it rubs off on him.
No one can pretend that this is an issue in which the House should not be deeply involved. A man in the North-West was sentenced to six-months' imprisonment a fortnight ago, for instance, for forging a passport.

An hon. Member: Four months.

Mr. Fernyhough: All right—but he was imprisoned. I do not think it is fair to say that we are not entitled to discuss


the matter. The whole of the Press has discussed it. It has been discussed on television. It is not fair to say that the House somehow must not say one word on this issue.

Mr. Cormack: Our standards are higher.

Mr. Fernyhough: Our standards may be a bit higher. I should hope that they are sufficiently high to ensure that a Member of the House of Commons has no greater preference when it comes to being dealt with by the law than an ordinary outsider. The significant thing is that if this matter had involved not a Member of Parliament but an ordinary member of the public, everyone knows that he would have been dealt with. It is precisely because of the privileges which attach to this House, as the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has said, privileges which have given the right hon. Member sanctuary in Australia, that he is not facing the same obligations and possibilities as would have to be faced by an ordinary citizen.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on one fact? As I understand it, being a Member of the British Parliament enabled the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to enter Australia without the normal immigration procedures. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but, as I also understand it, that does not prevent him from being extradited from Australia. He is in exactly the same position as would be any other citizen of this country—which is what the right hon. Gentleman is asking.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Once the right hon. Member for Walsall, North was able to prove to the Australian immigration authorities that he was a Member of this House, they did not take the steps against him which they would have taken in relation to anyone else.

Mr. Cormack: That is not the point. He got into Australia because, perhaps, he was a Member of Parliament. But the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is the valid point. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept

it. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North can be extradited for offences, irrespective of his parliamentary status, if charges are preferred against him.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn made it perfectly clear that extradition involves a two-way traffic. One can only extradite if the country from which one wishes to extradite is prepared to let one do so. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) can speak for the Australian Government, all well and good. I am not in a position to do that.
Among the ordinary people with whom I have discussed this case there is a feeling that if any one of them had such charges preferred against him in the Press and on television as have been made against the right hon. Member for Walsall, North, he knows full well that he would have been brought to trial and that there would not have been a great deal of sympathy for him in the House of Commons. The general public are not prepared to extend to a Member of this House any special privileges.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we cannot invent new privileges. We are not tied by the past. This House can, as and when it so determines, decide that something is against its honour and integrity. That is what I am in favour of its doing. That is why I am in favour of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has proposed. As I understand from the correspondence which my right hon. Friend read out that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North has every faith in the integrity and fair-mindedness of those who will make up the Committee, I cannot see where or why there should be any objection to this proposal in the House.

5.27 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been a Member of the House for many years. We have seen this happen previously. I want to make a few short observations.
This House is very careful to have no control over who comes into it as a Member. We should think very carefully before we decide whether we shall start, in its early stages, any process which might lead to deciding who should


leave the House. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made the point, perfectly clearly, that absence from the House has never been an offence. Were that to be an offence and were absence for a few months to be a ground for the setting up of a Select Committee, one or two hon. Members who are still in the House might find themselves in some difficulty over that.
My second point is about the courts of law. Nothing has been alleged at any time by any court, by Her Majesty's Government or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or by anyone else, against the right hon. Gentleman whose future we are discussing. We have had mentioned the question whether he is extraditable or not extraditable for an offence about which all one can say is that it appears that he may have committed. We have no information in the House beyond that.
The House is entitled to more information than has been given already by the Leader of the House. Did the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) apply for the Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead and then withdraw his application? Are there any proposals by Her Majesty's Government or the legal authorities to take any step whatever to bring him to the bar of justice for crimes which they think he may have committed? In the absence of any such efforts, this proposal is pretty threadbare.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that we could act only on the fullest information. We have not had that information. We have had speculation in newspapers. I know what the right hon. Member for Walsall, North is supposed to have said in one newspaper but when I read another newspaper I find that he has said something different. We read what his wife has said, what his secretary has said and what his secretary's husband has said. But there is nothing of authority.
No one will come to the House—and this is what the Leader of the House should do—and tell us what has happened. As the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has said, evidence in the newspapers is not enough. If the Leader of the House will, in his closing remarks, give one word of evi-

dence of something for which the right hon. Member for Walsall, North should answer, then I will vote for the motion. In the absence of such evidence I cannot.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has rightly indicated some of the difficulties in this case, about which hon. Members generally agree. No one can take part in this debate without a sense of the personal tragedy which is involved and, on the other hand, a sense of the historical importance of the subject we are debating, which goes to the roots of our parliamentary institutions. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
For this reason, although we have been enjoined to be brief, it is right for hon. Members to speak their mind and not merely to pass this motion formally. Naturally hon. Members must have regard to the sorry predicament of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and his family. I do not wish, if possible, in any way to add to their sense of pain. At the same time, the House must give thought to the constituents of my right hon. Friend. We must also give some thought to what the Leader of the Opposition said about the considerable level of public concern. Otherwise this case could become a scandal. Even more importantly in a sense, we must have regard to the good name and dignity of the House. Although I have my reservations, I welcome this motion to set up a Select Committee. The problem confronting the Committee is important and complex. As I shall show, it would be all too easy to come to simple but incorrect solutions which could set dangerous precedents for the future. I trust that the Committee will deliberate carefully and thoroughly.
I was away on a short holiday over Christmas, so I did not properly follow the end-of-December Press comments. I believe that I am not being unfair to the Leader of the House when I say that he would have wished not to have to table this motion. He believed that the problem could be solved in one of two ways. I am in agreement with him about the first way but have my reservations about the wisdom of the second.
The first solution enunciated by the Leader of the House was for my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North to return to this country and assist those agencies currently involved with his affairs. This would in any case have involved the House. Whether this would ultimately have affected his membership of this House I would not know. The second solution, and, naturally, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was concerned about the constituents in the division of Walsall, North, was for my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead. I have some reservations as to whether my right hon. Friend is right about this.
The precedents on this sort of case are by no means clear-cut. Plainly, the House has to have a resignation procedure, although I remind the House of what Sir William Harcourt said in 1893, that it was very desirable that another resignation system should be established. We have done precisely nothing about that. Under the system we have, the Chancellor of the Exchequer bestows an office of profit on a Member who wants to go. History shows that Chancellors have bestowed the appointment without inquiry into the general character or fitness of the applicant.
The worse his general reputation, the more advisable it is that by his resignation the House and his constituency should be rid of an undesirable Member.
Sir William Harcourt used these words, which I paraphrase, when he was questioned as to why, in view of his vast frauds, he had granted the Chiltern Hundreds to Mr. Jabez Balfour, who later fled to Buenos Aires.
History shows a number of similar, parallel cases. For the Chancellor to refuse to grant the Chiltern Hundreds could be held to be an act of vindictiveness. But there have been precedents the other way. There is a consideration which I feel the Lord President has not fully borne in mind. The Select Committeee reported in 1894 on the subject, saying that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's duty to refuse to grant the appointment either if the House directly enjoins him to do so or else if the Member's resignation would anticipate proceedings, whether imminent or actually

pending, in the House for censuring or punishing him. I will not go into greater depth here, although I could.
I would have thought that the Leader of the House might have been aware of the possibility that the House might at some stage rule, and I must choose my words carefully because I go by Press reports, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North in his dealings with two widows over his passport documentation had engaged in conduct which had effectively brought the House into contempt. I am driven, and I am not a vindictive man, to the point of view that there could have been something imprudent in the over-speedy granting of the Chiltern Hundreds. For that reason alone I welcome the motion.
Coming to the motion and to the appointment of the Committee, I am sure that my colleagues will do their work thoroughly and independently, because the constitutional issues now raised are considerable. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that it is necessary to make it clear that a Member can retire or resign from Parliament only by his own free will and not at the urgings of the executive or a party caucus outside.
Of course, this may present severe problems for the Member's constituents and the Government of the day. I remind the House that this case is not unique. Constituents and the Patronage Secretary have had this sort of problem before. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North is apparently now playing hard to get with his resignation letter of 13th January. To my mind that is a declaration of intent. But many people in life withdraw their resignations before they take effect. The Patronage Secretary did so before Christmas, and one reads, in memoirs, of Cabinet Ministers who have sometimes had their resignations on the table practically permanently.
John Maynard Keynes, in his "Essays in Persuasion", wrote about a member of the other place who employed two footmen, one fleeter of foot than the other, who was employed to retrieve any precipitate letters of resignation which the noblemen might have sent out by the first. Resignations are not always swift affairs. I mention two precedents showing where the intent took some time to realise. To show my impartiality in this matter I will


take one example from each side of the House.
The first concerns Captain Gee, V.C., Conservative Member for Bosworth, and the second example concerns Francis Noel-Baker, Labour Member for Swindon.
With regard to Captain Gee—I hope that hon. Members can follow the dates involved, which are germane—The Times of 25th November 1926 said:
There has been uncertainty of late concerning the whereabouts of Captain Gee, VC, MP. It now appears that Captain Gee arrived in Western Australia four months ago and stated that if he could settle on the land he might remain there and vacate his seat in the House of Commons.
On 10th January 1927 The Times reported that the Conservative Association had adopted Brigadier-General E. L. Spears as prospective candidate,
in place of Captain Robert Gee,
the present Member, who is resigning.
Col. Atkins, Chairman of the Association, said that Gee
had left England owing to ill-health and was settling in Australia. He would shortly apply for the Chiltern Hundreds but the date of the election could not yet be fixed.
According to my researches, it took about a year for this case to be cleared up.
Francis Noel-Baker, whom many of us knew, resigned his seat in March 1969, but he said in a letter to his local party on 8th March:
It had been my intention to resign in December or January but as you know I became ill and was not able to act until now.
Mr. Noel-Baker had originally announced his intention to resign in February 1968, and the local party adopted a prospective candidate in June. Mr. Noel-Baker said that his intention had been to resign in about October 1968. The Noel-Baker case took about 18 months to settle, slightly longer than the Gee case.

Mr. Thorpe: In fairness to the record, in the first case Mr. Baldwin refused to move the writ and in the second place Mr. Noel-Baker was pressurised by his own Whips not to resign. It was out of the control of both hon. Members involved; it was a question of how the House itself reacted.

Mr. Ginsburg: I was about to say that both those Members delayed their resignations to suit their parties, in this

case the Government, although it is worth adding that there was retribution in both cases, at the polls. Therefore, on precedent, it does not seem to me that the understandable concern of constituents and the Patronage Secretary to secure a resignation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North would be sufficient justification to convert a declaration of intent into a resignation.

Mr. Edward Short: It goes much further than that. The right hon. Member wrote to me on 13th January. The last sentence in his letter, which has been published, read:
Will you please therefore set in motion the formalities required for my resignation as the Member for Walsall, North?
Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer not been in Washington, that would have taken effect that day.

Mr. Ginsburg: My right hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. As I see it, my right hon. Friend in his letter to the Leader of the House had not passed the point of no return. I would even venture to say that if the Chancellor had jumped the gun by bestowing the Chiltern Hundreds, the House would have had to act to cancel the writ.
We are on surprisingly dangerous ground here. I would remind hon. Members and I would seriously remind the Leader of the House that Lord North actually wanted to bestow the Chiltern Hundreds on an unwilling recipient in order to be rid of a political foe. So we must be very careful to observe the proprieties. It is vital for the safety of democracy that Minister's rôles regarding the Chiltern Hundreds should be purely passive. I would make a suggestion that the House might like to consider. Clearly, we need a new resignation procedure which would leave Ministers absolutely out of the matter—a statutory declaration by the Member concerned which could be brought to Mr. Speaker.
All sorts of allegations have been made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. There is a Department of Trade inquiry, the police are apparently making inquiries and there could also be private writs. As other hon. Members have said, however, all


these matters and their possible consequences—bankruptcy or imprisonment—which might constitute grounds for automatic disqualification or expulsion from the House are purely hypothetical at this stage, and provide little for us to inquire into.
There have been Members under police investigation who have remained Members of the House. This must be within the memory of all of us—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is one in the House now.

Mr. Ginsburg: —and some who have actually served prison sentences, including Miss Devlin, not so long ago. But it takes six months to disqualify a Member who has been adjudicated bankrupt. So for many reasons this will not be the easiest of investigations for the Committee. Judging from his latest letter, my right hon. Friend may not come back to Britain to see the Committee.
The state of my right hon. Friend's mental health has been mentioned. The 1959 Mental Health Act is unlikely to assist a summary decision on his status. A man who is undergoing voluntary psychiatric treatment, as my right hon. Friend appears to be, should not forfeit his membership of the House on that account. The 1959 Act gives as the criterion detention in an institution. I would interpret that to mean—the statute is unclear—that this could apply only to a Member in respect of whom an order had been issued that he was a danger to himself or to others or—this is a case where the statute is deficient—that if he were a voluntary patient he nevertheless fell within this category. I should be most surprised, judging by the letters which have passed, if my right hon. Friend, who is probably a sick man, falls within that category.
So I return to the issue of contempt, which has worried me throughout my study of the case. One should not comment on hypothetical court proceedings. One should ask the Committee to consider whether, in his dealings with the two widows, Mrs. Mildoon and Mrs. Markham, there might not have been a

contempt of the House. "Erskine May" says:
Other acts, besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority, may constitute contempts.
Hon. Members enjoy a fiduciary relationship with the electorate which, putting it at its lowest, my right hon. Friend appears to have damaged and jeopardised. The Committee may find this too.
Although I support the motion and will vote for it, I still have doubts that we shall see a clear outcome of the case at this stage. Perhaps there may be some disappointment outside, but we are not here to gratify the sensationalists. Something much more important is at stake. It is Parliament's duty to watch over its privileges, which are a trust on behalf of our constituents. I would remind hon. Members what Lord Pannell, when right hon. Member for Leeds, West, emphasised many times in his speeches on matters of this kind. When one crosses the road outside the Palace of Westminster and one asks for the traffic to be stopped, one is claiming a privilege not for oneself but to discharge one's duties to 60,000 electors.
The implementation of that principle may lead us to defend the membership rights of an individual who has, let us face it, behaved unworthily. We should not shirk affirming our privileges on that account. It is right that it should be made extremely difficult for a Member to leave this House except of his own free will. It may well be in this case that restraint and patience by the House will be justified and that we should wait until the inexorable actions of the law and related processes work themselves through.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North will either return to this country voluntarily or by extradition or, alternatively, will be permitted to settle in Australia.
Meanwhile, I support the motion.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The House has listened to a very informative and interesting speech by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), who has done a great deal of work on this case.
I find myself in a quandary on the motion. I am troubled as to whether the motion is timely. There is no doubt that, on the face of it, and in the state of information as we have it today, the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) has behaved not only in a strange but in a scandalous way.
The right hon. Member wished the House to believe that he was dead when he left his clothes on a beach in Florida. That, to say the least, was an act of extreme eccentricity, if it was nothing else. We have learned that he obtained a passport in another person's name and had made the necessary inquiries to do that. That was the matter that brought this House into disrepute. We have to avoid immediately the suggestion that a Member of the House of Commons can get away with that.
On the other hand, the problem has been raised by the right hon. Member as to his state of mind when he did that. That is a matter which it will be extremely difficult for a Select Committee to decide. For example, I know, from my experience at the Bar, of a medical certificate or a medical report relating to an accused man which on the face of it disclosed a certain state of affairs. However, when the medical expert was questioned and cross-examined thereafter, a totally different state of affairs was disclosed. How would a Select Committee, for example, be able to judge and assess a medical report from an Australian psychiatrist who was not present to be cross-examined by the Committee? That medical issue might be the very issue which the House would eventually be asked to decide. I can think of many difficulties that would face a select committee now.

Mr. Ginsburg: As regards mental health, I think the 1959 Act is clear. Mr. Speaker can arrange for the appointment of two doctors, nominated by the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians, to examine the Member, but the provision would operate only if he were detained

in an institution. For the rest, there is nothing wrong in being mentally ill.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his informed intervention. However I think that he does not deal with my point as to how a Select Committee would deal with this matter, which may be the very matter at issue.
The third matter of scandal is this. The right hon. Member is absenting himself from the House and is in a position, whether he has done so or not, to draw the salary and allowances paid to a Member of Parliament for the duties which he has chosen, for reasons best known to himself, not to perform.
This last issue, which gives rise to feelings of concern and scandal outside, is whether the House, without any reference to a Select Committee, can take steps to suspend any payment of salary or allowances to the right hon. Member until the matter is cleared up at a later date. I would have thought that that could and should, be done immediately.
Another matter which causes concern was raised by the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), about the feelings of people outside the House that a Member of Parliament should not be dealt with any differently from anybody else. The House should always proceed carefully in defence of its own privileges, which are the privileges not so much of a Member as an individual as of a Member of the House. The House should be careful not to extend a cloak over an individual within the House to let it appear to the public that he is being dealt with differently. However, what would normally happen in this kind of case if this were an extraditable offence, as the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) indicated? No doubt the hon. and learned Member has carefully investigated that aspect. I also rather think that the disclosed offence is extraditable. In normal circumstances a person who has committed an offence would be extradited to this country.
However, a practical problem arises, which is the whole nub of this matter. I understand that inquiries are being conducted by the Department of Trade and by the police into other matters concerning the right hon. Member for Walsall, North. If the right hon. Gentleman were extradited from Australia he could be


tried here only on the matter for which he had been extradited. If the inquiries by the Department of Trade—which may, of course, prove that there was nothing of concern—established a prima facie case of a crime, the right hon. Member could not, if previously extradited, be tried on that matter. I do not think we should keep this aspect under the carpet, because it seems to me to be the only practical problem that we face. If it did not arise there is no reason whatever why the right hon. Member for Walsall, North should not be dealt with like any other citizen.
The real questions for the House are: how long is the Department of Trade inquiry likely to take, and how long are the police inquiries likely to take? if the right hon. Member for Walsall, North persists in being a Member of the House whilst those inquiries are going on—they may take a year or two—I think that is more than the public would be prepared to stand.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that on the question of how long the inquiries by the Board of Trade take into matters of similar kind, it seems that if we look at the London and Home Counties inquiry, which started in November 1973, we have a long way to go yet?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member no doubt has a detailed knowledge of those matters because he is always inquiring into such objects. I do not know. I have known Department of Trade inquiries take a relatively short time. The length of time taken depends on the nature of the inquiries.
This is a practical problem. Perhaps the Select Committee will itself take months over the matter referred. I do not see that that can be avoided. However, why should we depart from the normal proceedings at this stage? Why should not we wait until the Australian Government take a decision on the application of the right hon. Member to remain in Australia? If that application is refused, we may find him back here in a relatively short time. If so, why is it necessary to set up a Select Committee now.
The right hon. Member for Jarrow made a valid point, that people outside

the House feel scandalised that the House is not taking immediate steps. Citizens often feel scandalised, for example, when a serious crime is committed and a man is arrested for it. If they could take the law into their own hands they might deal with him expeditiously and immediately on the assumption that he was guilty. Yet in a few months' time when the trial is held totally different considerations might apply and a different light might be shed on it.
On the face of it, the right hon. Member's behaviour appears to be entirely scandalous. However, let us not forget that he served this country for many years, apparently entirely honourably, and was so highly thought of in the Labour Party that he occupied a very prominent position in the Government. It is right to assume that it may well be that there is some medical explanation for his behaviour. The House should not assume that there is not.
I cannot see how a Select Committee in the course of the next few months, on what it appears will be entirely written evidence, will be able to decide this issue. It appears highly likely that this is the major issue which will concern the Select Committee. Therefore, at this time I have come to the conclusion, despite the very eloquent and persuasive speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, that I shall vote against the motion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I associate myself with almost everything that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It is not the function of the House to whitewash anybody. It is not the function of the House to pretend that deeds have not been committed which may have been committed. Equally, it is not the function of the House to presume that a man is guilty before he has been proved guilty. It is not the function of the House to usurp the functions of the courts of the land.
I believe that the one question to which we should address ourselves today, which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and was touched upon most eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), is whether this is the proper moment to pass the motion. I believe that it manifestly is not.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, this is an understanding House. It is compassionate. It has a proper regard for human frailties and the pressures under which busy men frequently operate. If that is true, as I profoundly believe it to be, is it not all the more reason for our deferring consideration of the motion?
There are very few facts that we do know, but one fact that we know is that medical investigations are at present in train with regard to the state of health of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). We know for, a fact that there are certain police inquiries. We know for a fact that certain inquiries have been instituted by the Department of Trade.
It may well be—I do not know—that the right hon. Member is charged with extremely serious crimes. It may well be that he is held to have done things which are indeed a contempt of the House. Equally, it may well be that he knew not what he did. It may well be that his state of health was such that he had no proper control of his actions. I do not know. Neither does any other right hon. or hon. Gentleman. Neither can the Select Committee be in a position to pass judgment in that regard.
It is an absolute certainty—again this was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—that this right hon. colleague of ours for many years sat in the House and served his constituents well. He was—he is, because he is still a Member—a near neighbour of mine. I know full well that he was held in high regard by many of his constituents and by many people in the West Midlands who cannot understand what has happened since.
The House could take a lesson from The right hon. Member's agent, who throughout this sorry and perplexing business has continually protested "This is not the John Stonehouse that I know" and who has continually defended his reputation as a constituency Member. We do not need to defend the right hon. Member's reputation as a Member of the House because, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, he held very high office in Government and presumably was considered to be a fit person to hold the high offices to which he was appointed.
I believe that it would be quite wrong if we in the House today were precipitately—I remind the House that the right hon. Member has not been absent for three months—to set up a Select Committee which may well find itself frustrated when it comes to make the most important inquiries which it will have to make.
After all, there is an hon. Member who, although I understand that he has taken the oath, has not appeared in the House since the election in October.

Mr. David Crouch: Once.

Mr. Cormack: Once, to take the oath. I do not pass judgment on that hon. Member. He is not guilty of any breach of our regulations and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South said, absence is no crime. It is a strange logic which allows us, knowing that, knowing that absences are frequent and that the causes for absence are not always admirable, to pass judgment this afternoon on the right hon. Member for Walsall, North.
I submit to the House that we are to some degree passing judgment upon the right hon. Member if we approve the motion. I believe that we are in fact usurping the proper functions of the courts of the land.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Now the hon. Gentleman is libelling the members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Cormack: I am not libelling anybody. That is the very opposite of what I seek to do. I submit that nothing will suffer, that the reputation of the House is more likely to be enhanced and that our privileges are more likely to be safeguarded if we wait a little longer and see what the inquiries which are currently in train produce.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Surely the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is within the powers of the Select Committee collectively to decide that it would not be proper for it to undertake investigations at present, for any of the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has outlined, and so to report to the House.

Mr. Cormack: I accept that completely. However, it is our function today—the hon. Gentleman, who is very jealous of the privileges of the House, will readily


agree with me in this—to decide whether it is proper to set up a Select Committee in the first place.
I submit to the House—not because I seek to whitewash, not because I seek to make any comment on alleged conduct—that now is not the proper time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to comment in this respect on—I think that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) mentioned this—the leaving by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) of clothes on a beach in Florida as deception and tramping round his constituency getting confidential details of his constituents?

Mr. Cormack: No, I would not be prepared to comment in detail on those two matters, save to say that I do not know—neither does my hon. Friend—the state of the right hon. Member's mind when he was doing those things.

Mr. Fernyhough: Any more than we know the state of the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Cormack: Such facetious comments from a sedentary position do not enhance the right hon. Member's reputation. All we know is that it would appear that these things happened. If they happened and if they were the result of calculated manoeuvring by a man totally in possession of his faculties, they would deserve censure. But it is not for us to pass judgment on these matters this afternoon.
The very intervention made by my hon. Friend from the best of motives illustrates the pitfalls into which we should be plunging if we were to pass the motion today. The time is not ripe. In two months it may be ripe. Merely because it is convenient to fill a vacancy, merely because it may be convenient to have a by-election two months sooner rather than two months later, is no reason for our rushing through the motion today. I sincerely hope that the House will think again and that it will debate this matter this day six months.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I have known the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)

for four years. His peg was next to mine; his letters were next to mine; his office was near mine. I had many short conversations with him. He was always extremely kind and courteous, particularly when I was a new Member.
That is not the point. When I heard that the motion was to be proposed I wondered about its effect, not on the right hon. Gentleman concerned, but on the rights of all hon. Members. I promise to be brief and, not being a lawyer, I shall adduce no legal arguments, but I support emphatically those hon. Members who have questioned seriously the timing of the motion. This has been a most painful and difficult subject and, for those of us who are Members for the West Midlands, it is unfortunately a topic of daily conversation which is given, I believe, much too much publicity by all the media.
What we are deciding will affect the rights of everybody here. As I have said, I am worried about the timing of the motion. I do not believe that we should give way to party pressures, or—dare I say it?—to public opinion. In matters of this kind it is this House, and this House alone, which must judge what is right and proper, not only for the effect now, but for the effect on future generations of Members. I therefore believe that we should proceed with great care and circumspection. I have heard nothing in the debate to convince me that the Select Committee should be set up.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I came to the debate with an entirely open mind, as, no doubt, did many hon. Members. I hoped to be persuaded one way or the other on whether the Select Committee should be set up. I have come to the conclusion that I shall vote for the setting up of the Select Committee.
I thought that the most persuasive speech was that of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but it seemed to me that it contained two fundamental weaknesses. The first was that it contained unfounded assumptions. The point was made, notably by the Leader of the Opposition, that the assumptions were undoubtedly unfounded. It seemed to me that the right hon. Member for Down, South was trying to make a point


that the Select Committee would have some purpose other than that contained in the motion. In other words, although the purpose might not necessarily be perverse the Select Committee would commit the House irrevocably once it was set up. That is not a correct view.
The second weakness in the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South was that it took a somewhat precious view of the nature of the House of Commons—the view of a purist. This is a political assembly, and I like to think that it is a civilised assembly and that it has constraints of custom and rules which, rightly, keep us within civilised bounds. I am as aware as anybody of the privileges, rights and respect which the House jealously guards. Nevertheless, the job of the House is to deal with political situations which are practical, down-to-earth and day-to-day situations. It does not work in a vacuum, discussing on an academic level, within rigid legal constraints, problems which have no relation with the passions which wrack the hearts of men.
Essentially we are discussing the kind of problems which G. M. Tyrrell once called divergent problems. We frequently discuss rights and issues like questions of discipline and freedom which are very different from the so-called convergent problems of the scientists, economists and lawyers. It is precisely because of this basic function of the House that, although we must always be prepared to safeguard the rights, customs and privileges of the House, we must also be prepared to meet situations as they arise.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that the House cannot suddenly create a privilege and that it cannot then and there revoke a right, but if he implies that the House must now and for ever be as it is he is creating an absolutely impossible position for the House. The House must respond to the practical realities of life. An obvious practical reality which is implied—no more is implied—is that we should set up a Select Committee "to consider the position". The right hon. Gentleman said that we would be "humbugging" ourselves if we took that to mean what it said. It seems to me simply to mean that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is in an unusual

position. No one would dispute that simple fact.

Mr. Powell: I did not say that new privileges or new offences could not be created. I said that that could be done only by law and not simply by declaration of this House.

Mr. Ellis: I took the right hon. Gentleman's point when I said that he stated that privileges could not be created suddenly—that is, by statute. The point which I was making was that the House continually must readjust to the facts of life. I say no more than that.
The fact that the situation is unusual puts the House in the position in which it should be. It should be a flexible instrument to deal with situations as they arise. If a situation arises which has never arisen before, the House must deal with it. That is what the House is doing in the most careful way.
The motion is non-committal. It proposes the setting up of a Select Committee simply "to consider the position". When it has done that, it will, no doubt, report to the House. It may find its job easy or difficult. It may take a short or a long time to report. When it reports we shall have gained time, to discover what the difficulties are, and the House will be in a position to debate its report. For those reasons, therefore, I shall support the motion.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It will now be apparent why I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker before the debate began. The legal question which arises is: if in the House or in a Committee upstairs we discuss matters which would be germane in a criminal trial, could not the hon. Member concerned plead in bar of trial autrefois convict or autrefois aquit—the common law plea in bar of trial?
There is a further consideration apart from that legal point. Many countries will not grant extradition if they are satisfied that the person concerned will not receive a fair trial once he or she has been extradited. If a Parliamentary Committee has already examined factors germane to a criminal trial—namely, have certain events happened or not, and what


was the state of mind of the person concerned at the time—a substantial argument can be adduced that there cannot subsequently be a fair trial.
That was why I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker. Sure enough, views have been expressed in the debate about whether an offence has been committed, and, if so, whether it is an extraditable offence and, if it is, will the Australian Government be prepared to extradite? We have already started upon the course of action which I wished us not to start upon precisely so that the right hon. Gentleman could be treated before the criminal courts of this country, if that circumstance should arise, in exactly the same manner as any other citizen. I believe that that is basically what public opinion would wish.
Several decades ago the House of Lords got rid of the procedure, generally agreed to be archaic, whereby Members of the House of Lords could be tried before the House of Lords by their peers instead of undergoing the normal criminal processes in the courts. How odd it would be if we were now to adopt the reverse position, and have what is in effect a trial of fact on certain matters which, concerning one of our Members, are germane to the courts of this country, which should try those same facts de novo, not already being aware that the issue has been examined either on the Floor of the House or in a Select Committee.

Mr. Molloy: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, but will he not bear in mind that the analogy which he drew with the House of Lords is not germane, because the House of Lords is a court with power to sentence? The Select Committee has no such powers, and whatever it may recommend will be debated by the House of Commons. Would not it be better for the House to refer to a Select Committee the activities of a Member relating to his behaviour within the House or as a Member of Parliament, but not activities which could possibly be the concern of any court of law?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: First, the inquiry has to do with the establishment of facts, those facts also being relevant to a trial in a normal court of law. Secondly, the House has power to punish. The House

has power to imprison and to fine, and powers of disqualification and admonition. The House has power to punish. Whether or not it cares to exercise it is another matter. That is why my question to Mr. Speaker started in this way:
Does the High Court of Parliament constitute a court of law in the context that debate, either by the House on this motion or by a Committee set up pursuant to this motion …
The first question with which I am concerned is this. Should we take any steps that will prevent somebody, even a Member of Parliament, from being subjected to the normal criminal processes of this country, unprejudiced by previous investigation or report to which no other citizen of this country would be subjected?

Mr. Heath: I understand my hon. Friend's acute feeling on this. I recall sitting on two Committees of the House in which this specific matter was one of the main items. In one case action was already being taken and in another case it was clearly recognised that action might well be taken in the near future. There are some colleagues in the House who sat with me on those Committees. The Committees were perfectly able to handle such a situation, particularly the case in which action was already being taken.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, but my right hon. Friend has, I think, missed the point. By setting up a Committee of this kind we automatically prejudice other legal processes through the courts, both civil and criminal. We cannot help doing so. If the Committee is precluded from investigating the facts and the mental condition of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), pray what is the purpose of setting it up at all.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I think that my hon. Friend is arguing that any preliminary inquiry into the matters which might give rise to a criminal offence would prejudice the the right hon. Gentleman's possible trial in the future. In the coroner's court there is sometimes a preliminary inquiry into matters which give rise to criminal offences, but that does not in any way prejudice a man's later fair trial before a jury.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But this is not a coroner's court. If it were a coroner's court it would be subject to the normal


law of the land. We have not set up a coroner's court. What is suggested is that we should do something specific outside the normal law of the land. A coroner's court functions pursuant to the law of the land, and does not need a special resolution of the House to undertake its normal legal functions.

Mr. Molloy: Is a Select Committee unlawful?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not say that it is unlawful, but a Select Committee is outside the normal provisions of the law of the land and that is why it is necessary for the House to pass a resolution to set it up. It may be that the House should set up a Select Committee to decide whether hon. Members who have been absent for more than a certain period of time should be paid, and other questions of that kind. That should not be done ad hominem but on the general issues, it should not be done in the specific context of a Member who may be called upon to stand trial and to undergo civil proceedings in the courts.
It is extremely inconvenient for the electors of Walsall, North that their Member of Parliament should have been conducting himself in this, fortunately unusual, manner, but that is primarily something for which they have a responsibility. It was they who elected him as their representative to the House. The House did not select him to come here. Electors have to suffer some of the consequences of their actions. The ambition of the electors of Walsall, North was to return the right hon. Gentleman as their Member of Parliament.
There might come a day when the electors of Walsall, North—or of any other constituency—might wish to continue to represent them in the House of Commons a Member whom the Government of the day found extremely inconvenient, or whose own political party found extremely inconvenient. If we seek to relieve the electors of the circumstance which they have been more responsible for bringing upon themselves than anybody in the House we may do them at some future date a real disservice, which the constituents have never merited, by inaugurating a process to deal with a specific case with consequences with which we would not care to live in the future.
That is no reason why at some point in time we should not set up a Select Committee to discuss matters of this kind in general but not related to a particular case. Is it timely to set up such a Committee while the right hon. Gentleman's case is still sub judice in the sense that, presumably, the police are deciding whether or not to take certain action that is within their power?
If it is the case, as one understands, that the right hon. Gentleman's presence in Australia continues because of his status as a British Member of Parliament, that is not something which inherently follows from being a British Member of Parliament, but one which follows from the domestic law of the Commonwealth of Australia, for which we have no responsibility whatever. If the Australians choose, wisely or unwisely, to pass a law that Members of the British Parliament can enter their country and remain in it without observing the normal immigration controls, that is a matter for them, the consequences of which they are now experiencing. However, it is nothing inherent in being a Member of this House, and it is irrelevant from the point of view of the Select Committee or of any other Committee of this House which inquires into it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not wish to refute the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I find impressive, but surely to some extent it is handicapped by the fact that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) has not taken advantage of appearing to answer charges either in this House or in the courts of the land?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman says that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North has not appeared to answer charges. To the best of my knowledge, no charges have been made; there are no charges to answer. I am not aware that the police have gone to any magistrate and laid any information whatever.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What is this debate about then?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No charge has been made. The question whether or not the right hon. Gentleman will appear before the courts of this country without extradition, should the question arise, or


whether he appears before a Select Committee of this House, is something to which we do not know the answer. But we must not slip into talking of charges when no charges have been made.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the whole august process of a Select Committee, or the possibility that one is to be set up, amounts in this context to a very grave charge indeed?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I can honestly say that I hope that is not the case. If the passing of the motion is tantamount to making a charge, that would be an entirely adequate reason alone for voting in the "No" Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has made no recommendation on those lines. Indeed, he made no charge in his speech, and he was not saying that if the House passes the motion it will constitute the making of a charge against anybody.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is not the movement to set up a Select Committee to determine whether or not the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is or is not suitable to remain a Member of this House a charge in itself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must intervene. I made an appeal that hon. Members should be careful to remember that the House is considering "the position of"—no more.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. That is how I interpreted the matter.

Mr. Tom Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the motion mean precisely what it says, no more and no less?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made even clearer what I have just said.

Mr. Mexwell-Hyslop: I was saying to the hon. Member, who originally came from that particular part of the antipodes, that if I were to agree with the point he made that would be an additional reason for voting against the motion. However, I do not agree with his point and I do not include that matter among my reasons for opposing the motion.
I do not believe that we should treat this man any differently from the way the law treats any other person who may or may not have committed a civil tort or offence. The proper place to try the facts is in a court of law, and indeed the proper place in which to establish his mental condition is in a court of law, because mental condition may well have a part to play in his defence, or indeed may comprise the whole of it. There is even to be considered the question whether he is fit to stand trial if criminal proceedings were started. It would be utterly wrong for a Select Committee of this House to inquire into matters of that kind, which could not fail to prejudice a court of law in this country which sought to inquire into the same facts. It might well endanger extradition procedures because the Australian Government might feel a fair trial to be prejudiced.
It leads me to the conclusion not that there should not be an inquiry into certain general propositions about Members of Parliament on a number of issues which have already been raised but that we should not appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the position of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North in advance of the normal criminal and civil procedures of this country, even though it is admittedly inconvenient to the electors of Walsall, North. That is an inconvenience which they must suffer pursuant to their own choice.

Mr. Edge: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Walsall, North elected the right hon. Member in good faith and now feel themselves to have been betrayed? Does he suggest that they have no redress?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes. Their redress will come at the next election.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In four years' time?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Member was elected to serve for this Parliament. [Interruption.] The constituents are not innocent; they elected him.
If a court of law finds, on examination of the facts, that circumstances have arisen which disqualify any Member of this House, then that Member is disqualified, whatever constituency he or she may represent, and the constituents then have


the redress of a new election, but if we seek in an individual case to judge the facts which ought to be judged by a court of law, and apply tests whether such a Member should continue as a Member—in addition to those laid down by law—that surely would endanger, in a real sense, the continued existence of the back-bench Member of Parliament as an agent who cannot be got rid of at the behest of a Government or political party, but who can only be got rid of as long as he remains within the law of the land by his constituents at the next election.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I promise not to take up a great deal of time of the House, because about three hours ago in the Tea Room I expressed the view that we should get it all done with in a couple of minutes, send the matter to the Committee and let its Members deal with the matter there. But having heard many of the statements which have been made this afternoon, I thought that perhaps I should say a few words about some matters which I feel need clarifying.
I believe that the issue is largely centred on the question whether the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) is in a fit state of mind when he makes the various statements he has made from time to time both on television and in letter form to my right hon. Friends.
We are placed in a predicament today and for several weeks to come because we are in an institution which by and large plays things by ear. I do not attach a great deal of importance to the point of view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he spoke about the fact that there is no precedent for matters of this kind. In an institution which has no written rules, apart from Standing Orders relating to the actual business of the House, its rules are made on the basis of circumstances such as those we are discussing tonight. Precedents are set as a result of incidents of this kind. It may well be—I believe that it should be—that arising out of this situation a precedent or series of precedents may have to be set.
We might have to follow the example of local authorities. When a Member is absent for more than six months without due cause, whether he was swimming from Miami to Australia or whether he was

in South Africa, paired, the rules would apply. My guess is that most of the rules of the House have been devised precisely because the House has been placed in a predicament. It would be most sensible that we should devise instruments which take us away slightly from the kind of clubby atmosphere that this place has. In a way, therefore, the consequences that arise from this situation might not be so terrible.
I pass on to the question which has been uppermost in my mind throughout the debate, which is whether the remarks by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North and his actions over the last several months were made while he was of a clear and balanced state of mind. That is an issue of which the Select Committee must take cognisance. The right hon. Gentleman has consistently said, as I and others have reminded the House, that he no longer wants to stay in this country. That has been one of his most consistent remarks. My view is that that statement, recurrent as it has been and provided it was made by a man who knew precisely what he was doing sums up the whole question. We have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the right hon. Gentleman is making these statements and carrying out these deeds in a balanced state of mind.
Perhaps I may list some of the actions which bring me to the conclusion about how I shall vote tonight. Initially there was the question of the passports. I do not want to go into all the details because that would be wrong. The fact is, however, that my right hon. Friend—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It is not a fact. We do not know."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will respond to my appeal at the beginning of the debate. I do not think that the House should do or say anything which appears to prejudge any of the matter which the Committee will have to decide. Up to now the hon. Member has been entirely in order and has spoken appropriately, but I hope he will not go into issues of fact on which I do not think it is wise or fair for the House to express opinions at this stage.

Mr. Skinner: You have been absent from the Chamber for quite a time, Mr. Speaker. I feel that I should therefore point out to you that many hon. Members


have raised the question of the passports and of a whole series of incidents. I shall make the point without going into the details. I am not considering the question of whose passports they were, but it is evident that one passport was used. There is also the question of the cheque-book journalism, which is a fact. When BBC television has to announce that it is broadcasting photographs from Australia by kind courtesy of the Daily Express, that is enough for me to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, or someone very closely attached to him, was of a sound enough state of mind to get involved in that. Therefore, on the basis of this kind of consistency—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This surely cannot be in order. These things may well be true but they are not facts at the moment and I put it to you that it is not in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to talk in these terms.

Mr. Speaker: To suggest that anyone receives a payment for a television appearance or a newspaper article is not a suggestion of a criminal offence.

Mr. Skinner: That is precisely what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. You are making my argument for me. I am trying to indicate that we have to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman's consistent statement that he does not want to return to this country, quite apart from the question of his saying on one occasion that he wanted to apply for stewardship of the Manor of Northstead and on another that he had changed his mind, should be treated seriously. We all assume that by not returning to this country he could not represent his constituents. If we can conclude to some extent, or to a very large extent, that he was of sound mind when making these statements, we can afford to go into the Lobbies, perhaps timorously, to support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We could do so in the knowledge that there is a long-stop to take account of whatever may emerge from the inquiries.
The right hon. Member for Down, South tried to advance his argument not the basis of the House taking command merely on the basis of precedent but on

of these inquiries outside a court of law. He then went on to say that time was a factor too. My view is that the time taken by the Select Committee will perhaps be helpful in deciding that particular issue. It is for that reason that, somewhat incautiously perhaps, I come down on the side of the Leader of the House in favour of setting up a Select Committee. I do so in the knowledge that there is one further long-stop to cover all contingencies in the event that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North is found not merely by us but by the Select Committee, and subsequently by the House when the Select Committee reports back, to have had a raw deal. In the event that everything that has been said in the Press over the course of the last several months is completely wrong, which I very much doubt, the further long-stop which will decide it for once and for all is that he will be able to stand for election again and have another chance.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: The debate has shown the difficulty facing the House. We have had a thoughtful and in some ways a heart-searching debate, and I appreciate the spirit in which it has been conducted.
First, in view of the interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), I must make clear that there were no imputations and that there was no prejudgment of any kind in what I said or in what the motion says about anything which may become a matter for the courts to decide. The Leader of the Opposition said the same in his speech.
However, it is common ground that there is a considerable and worrying problem surrounding the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) on which there are different points of view. It is that problem which I am suggesting we refer to a Committee of senior, experienced Members. Most hon. Members—at any rate, those who have written to me and have been to see me—want it considered now. Judging from my postbag and the Press, I believe that the public also want it considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brown-hills (Mr. Edge) put the views of the people of Walsall, and I believe that the House should take account of those views.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) emphasised the constitutional importance of the debate. I agree with him that it is of considerable constitutional importance and interest. The right hon. Gentleman said that no one should be expelled from the House on grounds of absence alone, and of course I agree with him. We would all agree with that proposition. He added that no one should be expelled on grounds of alleged criminal offences alone, offences which may or may not have been committed. I agree with that proposition.
But the problem surrounding the right hon. Member for Walsall, North has many ingredients, as the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said in a thoughtful and accurate speech. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just said, there is the indisputable, clear, oft-repeated assertion that the right hon. Gentleman will not return to this country under any circumstances. Many hon. Members have talked about evidence. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asked whether there was any evidence. The one fact on which there is a mass of documentary evidence in letters to me is the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that he will not return to this country. I have quoted two of the letters today.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that by setting up a Select Committee and asking it to establish the facts the House would be in some way arrogating to itself the consideration of matters which are properly the concern of the courts of law. If the right hon. Member for Walsall, North were willing to return to this country to answer any charges which might be brought against him, we might well not wish to proceed in the way now proposed, but he has made it clear beyond any doubt—there is clear documentary evidence of this—that he has no intention of doing so. Therefore, it is not a question of waiting for a period to see whether he is willing to return. He has made it absolutely clear that he intends to remain in Australia for so long as the authorities there will allow him to do so. In those circumstances I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn that it is, sadly, necessary

for us to consider what action should be taken.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of extradition. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn rightly referred to some of the difficulties. If I may say so to an eminent lawyer, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) explained the difficulties absolutely correctly. It would be wrong to discuss the extradition issue today but I hope that hon. Members, whatever their views on the matter, will understand the difficulties stated by both hon. and learned Gentlemen.

Mr. Hooson: A question of crucial importance on the timeliness of the motion is how long the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the investigations into other matters, whatever their result, will take. That is crucial in deciding whether we are taking the right step. Surely the Lord President will have made some inquiries of the Department of Trade and the police as to the likely length of their inquiries before they can report.

Mr. Short: In talking to the media or in speaking in the House I have never referred to the other matters, as the hon. and learned Gentleman describes them, and I do not intend to do so today. I am sorry that they have come into the debate at all.
I do not believe that the motion is premature. It is a matter of judgment, and some hon. Members take a different view. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North has been absent from the House since 18th November. He has been in Australia for some weeks, and has said over and over again that he will not return. There is great public concern.
I read to the House today two or three extracts from my exchange of letters with the right hon. Gentleman, and if the Committee is established I shall make the whole of that correspondence available to it, although I think that most of it has been published already.
I recognise that the matter presents us all with a great difficulty, but I feel that the time has come when the House should examine it and that a Select Committee is the most appropriate way. I have every confidence that the Committee will carry out its task with fairness and justice to the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind


the long tradition of the House in safeguarding its privileges and the security of Members of Parliament.

Division No. .74]
AYES
[6.56 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Eyre, Reginald
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Fairgrieve, Russell
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fookes, Miss Janet
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Baker, Kenneth
Ford, Ben
Neave, Airey


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Neubert, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Newens, Stanley


Bates, Alf
Freud Clement
Newton, Tony


Bean, R. E.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Noble, Mike


Bell, Ronald
George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gilbert, Dr John
Onslow, Cranley


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David
Ovenden, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding John
Owen, Dr David


Boardman, H.
Goodhew, Victor
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Graham, Ted
Perry, Ernest


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gray, Hamish
Phipps, Dr Colin


Brittan, Leon
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Prescott, John


Brotherton, Michael
Hamling, William
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harper, Joseph
Reid, George


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buchanan, Richard
Hatton, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Havers, Sir Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roderick, Caerwyn


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Ryman, John


Cartwright, John
Huckfield, Les
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sillars, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Silverman, Julius


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Skinner, Dennis


Conlan, Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
John, Brynmor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Snape, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Johnston Russell (Inverness)
Spearing, Nigel


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Spence, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Crawford, Douglas
Kerr, Russell
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Crawshaw, Richard
Knox, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamont, Norman
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, John
Stott, Roger


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Luard, Evan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McElhone, Frank
Thompson, George


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Macfarlane, Neil
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tierney, Sydney


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tinn, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Madden, Max
Tomlinson, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dunn, James A.
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Durant, Tony
Marten, Neil
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie, Alex
Mates, Michael
Ward, Michael


Edge, Geoff
Mawby, Ray
Watkins, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mayhew, Patrick
Watt, Hamish


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
White, James (Pollock)


Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Mills, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Ewing Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 30.

Wigley, Dafydd
Woodall, Alec



Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Woof, Robert



Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. John Ellis and


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hon George





NOES


Biffen, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Crouch, David
Lamond, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Drayson, Burnaby
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stokes, John


Dunlop, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Fell, Anthony
Molyneaux, James



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannam, John
Pardoe, John
Mr. Patrick Cormack and


Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.



Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the position of Mr. John Stonehouse as Member for Walsall, North:
That the Committeee do consist of Ten Members:
That Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Mr. Edward du Cann, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. John Peyton, Sir David Renton, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. George Strauss be Members of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.

SCOTLAND (RATE SUPPORT GRANT)

7.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the two following motions:
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Mr. Ross: These are important orders governing the expenditure and the support given by the Government in respect of the

expenditure of the Scottish local authorities. The first order provides grant for the coming year, 1975–76. The second order increases the grant for 1973–74, which has already been increased by an order made in 1974. The third order is to increase the grant for the current year, 1974–75. As the two increase orders are to compensate for the effect of inflation on grant settlements which the House has debated previously, I shall address my remarks principally to the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1975, which provides grant for 1975–76.
The orders relate to what is bound to be a difficult period for the Scottish local authorities. In the first place the system of city, county, burgh and district councils, which have been familiar to us all, will cease to exist. Every one of those authorities is being abolished and they will hand over to the new regional, island and district councils which were elected last year. Such change, which would not be easy at the best of times, is taking place at a time of exceptional economic difficulty. An economic situation such as this strains the local authority financial system. Budgetary control loses its effect if it is not related to some static base.
Unfortunately many of the authorities which are going out of existence did not make a practice of separating the element of inflation in their budgets and distinguishing it from the cost of continuing commitments and real development. When the effect on rates of real growth at 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. is dwarfed by the effect of inflation at 20 per cent., it is all too easy for a council's control of expenditure to slip if the budget does not clearly distinguish these two elements.


I shall be sending the new local authorities a circular giving some advice on the control of budgets and determination of rates for 1975–76.
The situation is the worse because of the time scale within which the important decisions have to be made. The total of expenditure acceptable for rate support grant purposes for any year has to be determined about half way through the previous year, and a first determination of grant has to be made four to five months before the beginning of the year. It is possible to make subsequent increase orders to add to the grant for the services in respect of increases of costs.
But a local council is not in that happy position. It can determine its rate poundage only once a year—and it is now generally agreed that rates ought to be fixed at the beginning of the year, much earlier than in the past. If the council includes a wrong forecast, nothing can be done about it until 12 months later, when the following year's rates can include a corrective element.
The difficulties can be seen very clearly in relation to the present year, 1974–75. Though neither I nor my predecessor made any prediction about the rate of inflation when we considered rate support grant a year ago, there is no doubt that neither we nor the local authorities allowed for it to be as great as it has turned out to be. This meant that on average rates were pitched at a lower level than, in the event, we can now see they should have been.
There is also a difficulty about balances, arising from 1974–75 being the last year before reorganisation. A prudent local authority tries to budget for a credit balance at each year's end as a cushion against the possibility of unexpected heavy expenditure during the year and to provide for expenditure pending the receipt of rate income in the following year.
This year, I suspect, some authorities have budgeted to run their balances down and to reduce the likelihood of their having anything to hand over next May—which, of course, is rather foolish, because it is the same ratepayers who will bear the burden. If that is so, however, there will not be enough in reserve to cover the unexpected increases of expenditure caused by rising costs and there are likely to be substantial deficits, some at

least of which the new authorities will have to take over and liquidate by rating in 1975–76 or 1976–77.
The only way in which that could be avoided would be for the Government to meet the deficits. Obviously such a course would be unfair to the ratepayers of the more prudent authorities. What we can do, to help all ratepayers equitably, is to give a generous increase of grant in the present increase orders. Normally, for an increase order we first assess the amount of inflation and then apply the same percentage grant rate as in the original order. This gives for 1973–74 an extra £8½ million grant—that is, the takeover of the last element of inflation for 1973–74 and application of the percentage.
In 1974–75 the grant rate of 68 per cent., applied to £128 million of extra costs, gives a figure of £87 million extra grant. This is in the increase order for 1974–75. However, to help the local authorities with the remainder of the cost increases, which are greater than they could have foreseen when fixing their rates, I have decided to allow a special addition of £25 million, making a total addition to grant for 1974–75 of £112 million. Details of the calculations are given in the reports on the orders, House of Commons Paper No. 123 for the 1973–74 increase and No. 124 for the 1974–75 increase.
Of course further increases of costs, relative to the current year, may well have to be met before next May, including arrears under the teachers' pay settlement. There will be another increase order in relation to these costs and I intend that this should be paid earlier than usual. However, I should make it clear that the extra £25 million is a once-for-all addition. The next increase order will be for 68 per cent. of the further cost increases and no more.
I now turn to the order for 1975–76. The figures for reckonable expenditure given in the report on the order—House of Commons Paper No. 122—are, in accordance with the 1966 Act, at November 1974 prices. They do not provide for subsequent rises in costs which cannot be precisely quantified but clearly will be substantial. Local authorities when determining their rates will need to make provision for meeting their share of expenditure as at present estimated, plus this potential


increase of costs—those that are known or will be known by the time the local authorities are fixing the rates.
However, I have taken account of the likelihood of cost increases, and ensured that their effect on ratepayers will be minimised, by deciding that the grant rate should be raised from 68 per cent. in the current year to 75 per cent. in 1975–76. Detailed figures are given in the report. I shall explain some of the considerations which led to this decision.
First, while the average level of rates is bound to rise, I want to help the new local authorities to hold the increase to as small a figure as possible. Therefore, I have taken into account not only the level of reckonable expenditure shown in the report but also the substantially higher prices at which local authorities will have to rate for it. Then, in the 75 per cent. rate of grant I have taken into account two transitory factors. One is the deficits which some of the new authorities are likely to inherit as a consequence of underrating by their predecessors this year.
Secondly, I have allowed for the consequences on the finances of particular regions of applying a new distribution formula to new local authorities. This is explained in detail in paragraph 32 of the report. The overall effect happens to be that, by comparison with England and Wales, the grant will rise by one percentage point in 1975–76. This may be regarded by some—at least by some Scots—as a welcome reversal of the trend in the last two years. However, some of the factors which affect the grant rate for next year will not recur. There is no fixed relativity between the appropriate rate for the two countries, and the differential is unlikely to remain constant in the future.
As regards the level of reckonable expenditure on which the 75 per cent. grant is calculated, because of the economic situation we have had to apply more stringent tests than in past years in determining what is acceptable. The Government reached the conclusion that growth of spending in real terms must be restricted to inescapable commitments. This includes, for example, the charges to revenue account arising from past and current building programmes and the extra cost arising from changes and movement of population. Among these

is, of course, the extra expenditure by local authorities connected with the development of North Sea oil.
Some of this extra expenditure is covered by the normal grant distribution. But I have carried out my undertaking to introduce a new element in the distribution formula to ensure that additional grant is given to the authorities concerned so as to ensure that an unreasonable burden does not fall on the ratepayers.
As explained in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the report, the effect of the restrictions which have been applied is to provide for reckonable expenditure in 1975–76, excluding loan charges and cost increases, to be 3·8 per cent. higher than in 1974–75, a reduction of about one-third of the average actual increase in recent years—the actual, not the calculated increase. This means the deferment, I am sorry to say, of new developments and improvements and a severe restriction on increases of staff numbers. The implications for different services are briefly set out in the report, and I shall issue a circular specifying them in more detail and giving a lead to local authorities about the areas in which they should be able, with our support, to reduce the rate of growth of their expenditure.
But the local authorities have said to me—I conducted these negotiations personally—"If you want us to curtail expenditure, give us some guidance". It is not just a matter of convincing the representatives of the local authority associations. They have to convince their own people of the gravity of the situation, and the Government will do what they can to help.
Paragraph 2 of the report explains how all figures have been calculated for a period of 12 months and have then been adjusted to the 10½ months of the financial year 1975–76. For the full 12 months the reckonable expenditure is about one-third higher than in the settlement of a year ago relating to 1974–75—that is, £908 million against £660·61 million—while the grant is up by over one-half. The grant is £681 million as against £449·21 million last year. I hope that the House will recognise the generosity of the settlement.
I can assure the House that I got agreement with the local authorities in relation to this. There was no row at


our meeting. That is not to say that they would not have liked more. It means that rate poundages next year will be significantly lower than they would have been if the rate of grant had remained unchanged. It has to be understood that this is designed to keep rates down; it must not be taken as a charter for staff expansion or other new commitments.
Even so, substantial extra sums will have to be raised by rates, mainly as a consequence of inflation. I do not propose to predict the amount by which rates will rise. Whatever figure I mentioned would probably be immediately challenged, but in any case it could only be an average of the increases over the whole country. Averages always tend to be misleading, and this will particularly be the case in this reorganisation year, when variations will be even greater than usual.
Let me remind the House of the ways in which reorganisation may affect rates. I have already mentioned the way some authorities have artificially reduced rates this year by running down balances. Obviously, all reductions of this sort not arising from net reduction of expenditure must be followed by a compensating increase next year.
Changes of boundaries on reorganisation will also affect the distribution of grant, which is related to demographic factors. The formula must be changed in any case because, for example, a weighting depending on the proportion which the population of the landward area of a county bears to the total population is clearly no longer workable in a new situation in which certain local authorities, landward and urban areas, are now part of one authority. The new formula is designed to give a fair amount to each new authority in relation to its new circumstances.
But this sum for 1975–76 is bound to be different from what would have been channelled to the same area had there been no reorganisation. A reduction of grant results in an addition to rates over the whole area, even though some ratepayers actually have a reduction of rates for other reasons—which I shall come to. As I have already mentioned, this was one of the factors in deciding on the 1975–76 grant percentage, and the effect is to add £5¼ million to

the grant, which will help to cushion this particular effect. The order provides for this sum to be distributed to the regions losing grant under the new distribution, in proportion to their estimated losses, so as to mitigate the rise in rates which otherwise would be required.
Thirdly, apart from grant, rates will be affected by changes of boundaries. These changes affect the distribution of net expenditure, which is spread over ratepayers in proportion to rateable value. The inevitable effect of combining two or more areas is to average out their rate poundages, with those previously below the average being increased and those previously above average being reduced. This is inevitable. That relates to expenditure which does not change. With extra expenditure in 1975–76 compared with 1974–75, the combined effect may be that all rate poundages will rise, but some considerably more than others.
This consequence of reorganisation is not related to the grant distribution and cannot be dealt with in a rate support grant order. It is not even to be deplored, because for the most part it means that the greatest discrepancies in charges to ratepayers will be eliminated. Nevertheless, those who have very low rates in 1974–75 are bound to complain if they have very large increases in 1975–76. Those are the ones we are likely to hear about. Officials of my Department and the local authorities are therefore trying to work out a scheme which would phase the transition from the present variety of rates to uniform regional rate poundages over a period of three years. This scheme, once worked out, would be put into effect by an order under Section 215 of the Act of 1973.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State in replying to the debate will deal with any questions of detail about the distribution formula. The details and the reasoning are set out fully in the order and the report. We believe that this order will produce a much greater fairness among ratepayers than any previous order, though of course we may be able to introduce further refinements next year.
Perhaps I may anticipate one criticism—that the relatively simple distribution of needs element to districts is unfair to the big spenders, among whom are most of the districts in Strathclyde. At the small burgh and county landward level, I should


remind the House, there always have been differences in the range of services provided and their costs. We are not dealing here with services provided to every ratepayer at a broadly equivalent standard. It is doubtful, therefore if we could in fairness use the grant distribution to equalise the burdens of ratepayers in districts where the range of services provided may be quite different.
Even if we could do that, however, I was advised by the joint working party of officials which reported on the grant distribution that no weighting formula could be worked out to distribute grant in such a way as to equalise the net reckonable expenditure per head of population in districts. What formula, for instance, would put Sutherland into the same bracket as Kirkintilloch, Berwickshire alongside the city of Aberdeen, the Eastwood district alongside Edinburgh or Orkney alongside Angus? Nevertheless, we may do better in future. I have undertaken that the distribution formula will be fully considered in consultation with the new local authorities' association before next year's order is made.
The order provides a really massive degree of help to local authorities which should enable the burden of rates to be kept to a tolerable level. I commend it and the increase orders to the House.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I should like, first, to thank the Secretary of State for explaining what is an extremely complicated order. The increase orders are also complicated. I want to direct my remarks to the main order. It is this order, with the new distribution formula, and the very new situation into which we are moving in Scotland with the new local authorities, which obviously causes the greatest concern. I am sure that most of the speeches, from both sides of the House, will be directed to it.
I welcome the fact that these increases will give relief to local authorities in respect of the costs they are having to face. I also welcome the increase in the Government's contribution from 68 per cent. to 75 per cent. under the main order. This is a generous increase. I am sure that it will be welcomed by local authorities and ratepayers throughout Scotland. At the same time, the efforts being made

to help on the question of transitional relief over this period—something about which we spoke in the debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill last week—are again to be welcomed, as is the help for oil development areas. Therefore, in principle I welcome these things, although I am sure that there will be plenty of questions on individual points during the debate, some of which I hope to put myself.
What really matters to the ordinary person in Scotland, the ratepayer, is the effect at the end of the day on the rates he actually has to pay. What he wants to know is the effect of the order on his pocket. The right hon. Gentleman, understandably I suppose, was somewhat coy about that matter tonight. He said that he would not go into the realm of trying to estimate what this increase might be. I appreciate his reasons for not doing so, but I am rather sorry that he does not have the courage of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, when the English order was debated on 12th December, tried to give certain estimates. He said:
I reckon that the average increase"—
Like the right hon. Gentleman, he said
I stress the word 'average'"—
One has to be careful about the use of that word in matters such as this—
will be about 25 per cent. for domestic rates."—[Official Report, 12th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 788.]
That figure has been spoken of widely south of the border. If the Secretary of State cannot give some indication, albeit an average indication, of what this increase will be, all that one has to go on in such a debate is the expectation that, for the same reasons and economic factors as are affecting local authorities south of the border, as well as those in Scotland, ratepayers in Scotland may well be having to expect an average increase of that sort.
This rate support order is a sad comment on the way in which inflation is moving. These are extra burdens which people have to bear. The Minister of State said in the Scottish Grand Committee last July that he thought that the large increases announced for England and Wales were unlikely to be repeated in Scotland. Those were pious hopes. The treasurer of the city of Glasgow


has predicted a rate increase of about 30 per cent., which makes the Minister of State's words of last July look a little thin today.
During the election campaign Labour Members were more careful about their figures. We now know that inflation is running at about 19 per cent. Given that increase, it is not surprising that rate increases of 25 per cent. and above are being discussed. Such figures are inevitable if services are to be improved and extended. It is against this sombre background that we have to examine the order.
The situation is made all the more difficult because of the distortions produced this year by the way in which local authorities have used up their balances. I can understand the reasons for that. Over the region I represent the authorities have used up balances of the order of £3 million, representing about a 40p rate poundage. Is that figure correct? If so it automatically builds a large sum into prospective rate increases. For that reason we welcome the transitional relief given here.
There is a need for economy and for local authorities throughout Scotland to cut out extravagances of any kind. The extra money being provided must be used carefully, and local authorities must ensure that all expenditure is justified.
I return to the vexed question of the salary levels of those employed with local authorities. In replying to the debate last Monday evening, the Minister of State rather glossed over this. He shrugged off the salaries question by saying that it was a matter for the new local authorities and that there was not much the Government could do. There could be some economies by local authorities. Perhaps the Minister of State can give us some further information.
I have examined this since last week and it appears that there is no uniform level of extravagance over these new posts. I have had to rely on Press reports in my researches. No doubt the Minister can be more specific. The Dundee Courier of 9th January said that Fife Regional Council had reduced by 56 the number of posts in the new set-up. This is the kind of news which the ratepayers want to hear.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Does this not reflect the wisdom of keeping Fife as a regional local authority?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will take credit for that, with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I hope that economies can be greater still in some of the other regions in Scotland.
In The Scotsman of 8th January it was said that there had been increases of between £1,000 and £3,000 in salaries for posts which it was claimed carried no increased responsibility. Far too often over the last few weeks attention has been focused on authorities where, in some cases, new posts have been created with salaries apparently greatly in excess of parallel posts under the old local authorities. I hope I am wrong when I say that there appear to have been extravagances. I would certainly exclude Fife from some of those strictures. We have seen reports in the Press. I hope that we can have some reassurance about the economies being made. The Secretary of State said that he and the Scottish Office would be watching how the money was used. I hope that this happens and that tight control is exercised.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman goes on endlessly about this. Has he taken the trouble to get any specific examples from the Lothian Region or the district councils involved? Having made those assertions, he owes it to the House to give some examples. I have taken the trouble to go into this carefully, and it is not as bad as he suggests.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I asked for this information a week ago. The Government are in the best position to provide it. I have quoted from specific Press reports, which I shall be delighted to give to the hon. Gentleman later. I have been in touch with local authorities in my area when concern has been expressed. It is a great reassurance to the ratepayers if they know what the position is.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman continues to make assertions from the Opposition Front Bench, will he say whether he has bothered to contact any


of the district authorities in the Lothian Region or the new regional council? Yes or no?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have not contacted the Lothian Region. I have contacted authorities in my region. I see nothing wrong in using reports from the Press which have not been denied. If the reports were wrong I should have thought that the authorities would have denied them.
I turn now to oil-related developments and to the grants announced in this connection recently. I hope that we can have some clarification about how this money will be used and how much expenditure the additional grant is likely to generate. The Minister of State said last week that this money would be largely used to meet loan charges. If he was correct, the assistance will be virtually on loan charges alone, and capital expenditure will get no direct help from this source.
Some of this expenditure is not related to capital expenditure. Roads, sewerage and water schemes and education services are necessary in oil development areas, but in matters like salaries—I repeat the concern expressed in the Grampian Region by the convener for finance—it is difficult to distinguish oil-related expenditure. For example, because of the buildup in population and housing work, there will be an increase in staff not due only to oil. I hope that local authorities can can have more guidance. Circular 84/74 asked for returns by 9th December of what local authority expenditure would be. I hope that now, two months later, some analysis has been made and that we may hear about it tonight. We should like more precise information to reassure ratepayers than the round figures that we had last week.
Probably the most complicated question is the new distribution formula. There is great dissatisfaction in some areas with the way that this has worked. In the Grampian Region, with which I have been most closely concerned, the chairman of the finance committee was reported as saying that, because of the new formula, the region would lose the equivalent of a 9p rate. There is some relief under the transitional arrangements but the net effect is still alleged to be a 5p rate, and

it alleged that the Strathclyde Region will gain about 5p.
Concern has also been expressed at the division of district from regional councils. Whereas the districts will receive about 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of the grant, their percentage share of expenditur is 14 per cent. There are good reasons for changing the formula, which has not worked well in some areas. The root of complaints from the city of Glasgow distract is that it will have to bear an additional burden.
It is alleged that these two sets of complaints are a result of the formula. The balance may have gone too far the other way in the past, but there is a feeling in the North-East that the new formula is biased against the rural and in favour of the industrialised areas. Those to whom I have spoken appreciate the trouble that has been taken to meet this formula and they are prepared to see how it works for the first year in the light of the assurance that it will then be reviewed. I welcome that assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. If there is a shift in the balance, they want to know whether this is as a result of the formula. If this is shown to be so this year, will it be taken into account in the review?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that rural areas in the Grampian and Highland Regions have had many amenities that most cities have not had? If their rates are raised, there is no question of any improvement in amenities in the early years, so they will always suffer for the new arrangements. Should we not be certain that we do justice to the rural areas in some transitional arrangement, and will he keep pressing the Minister on these matters?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is an element of transitional relief in the order, which I welcome. As the hon. Lady says, however, the question is whether that is adequate. I represent a rural area which at the moment enjoys a relatively low rate poundage but faces the likelihood of a higher poundage without the benefit of these extra amenities. One such amenity, as I said on the Second Reading of the Local Government (Finance) Bill, is rural transport. Specific grants have been removed, and I am concerned that under


the new arrangements the balance will be in favour of the urban areas. At present transport expenditure falls within the ambit of the main rate support grant expenditure. It may be that local authorities will direct the money to areas of expenditure other than rural transport, about which there is so much concern and worry.
I welcome the amount of this order and the help that it will give, and hope to receive clarification of the points raised affecting ratepayers in Scotland. In some senses the order is generous and will be welcomed by Scottish local authorities. However, it must be considered against the background of inflation, which is running at 19 per cent. while ratepayers are being faced with increases of the average order of 25 per cent. The Government are not being generous in that situation. In spite of what will be done, ratepayers in Scotland face a serious situation in the coming year.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: We are grateful for the tributes which have been paid to the Secretary of State.
I was grateful to the Secretary of State for the fact that the new distribution formula is not as bad as was at first expected, and I am delighted that Glasgow will benefit to the tune of £10 per head.
I appreciate the point made about the difficulties experienced by the urban and rural areas. That argument has been put forward over many years. There will be a problem between Glasgow and the other areas in the Strathclyde Region. The rural areas have their problems but I am glad to see that recognition has been given to the problems faced in the city of Glasgow.
Glasgow is experiencing terrible problems with regard to housing, schools and the rundown of industry. It is fitting that the rate support grant should take account of the unfortunate decay which has taken place in Glasgow over the past few years. Nevertheless, I should like to pay attention to two points in the report on the Rate Support Grant Order regarding education services and

social work services. Paragraph 12 says:
In the forecast of expenditure for education, provision has been made for increased expenditure proportionate to the growth in pupil and teacher numbers and for the continued improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools".
We welcome that and hope it will continue.
I am worried about the number of promoted posts within the Glasgow education authority. Although there is a shortage of teachers in many schools in Glasgow, I am worried about the number of teachers who are not in the classroom. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would hold discussions with local education authorities and ask them to use their persuasive powers to move the teachers from the promoted posts back into the classroom. That would go a long way to counteract the shortage of teachers and would be beneficial to teaching as a whole.
On the question of social work, which is dealt with in paragraph 13, I am disappointed that no allowance has been made for further expansion of the home help services, nor for any general levelling up of standards of services within the new regions. I have raised the matter in the last three debates on rate support orders.
A substantial part of hospital boards' development building programmes is devoted to the construction of geriatric units. I do not dispute the need for such units. However, the large number of geriatric units built recently and in the pipeline gives deep cause for concern for people engaged in social work, as to whether the accent is right and whether, instead of building these human filing cabinets in which people are stored away and by means of antibiotics kept alive as vegetables, other facilities should be provided. Geriatric units are costly to build and difficult to staff. I do not dispute the need for a certain number of such units but contend that the emphasis over the last few years has been to build far too many of them. It seems all too easy, when a person lives alone and becomes disabled, to place him in a geriatric unit. I prefer the provision of more community services, an extension of the home nursing service and the home help service. Information should be made available to com-


munity councils and other interested bodies participating in community care in favour of elderly people, who are often disabled, being kept at home. Will the Secretary of State consider placing more emphasis on a programme to build more houses for the disabled?
For instance, the Glasgow Corporation has not built one house specifically for disabled persons, which is to its discredit, although it has a fine record in other respects. I have had a deep interest in disabled people over a number of years, and I have pointed out to the Glasgow local authorities the need to concentrate on building and adapting houses for the disabled, so that with an extension of the home help and home nursing services we could reduce the number of people entering geriatric units.

Mr. George Younger: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that no sheltered housing has been built for the disabled in Glasgow or that no house in Glasgow has been adapted for the use of disabled people? I doubt whether that is true.

Mr. McElhone: I trust that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will not misunderstand me. I said that no house in Glasgow had been specially built for disabled persons, which the local authority is supposed to do under Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Many older council houses have been adapated, and a degree of sheltered housing has been created by the corporation.
A large number of disabled people in Glasgow end up in geriatric units. There are many disabled people under the age of 65 who end up in geriatric units for want of proper accommodation. That is wrong. Therefore, with more community care, through community councils and other voluntary groups, and by making available the home help and home nursing services, we could enable many hundreds of such people to remain at home. That is a compassionate attitude which could be taken by local authorities. That should be their aim, not the building of more geriatric units, which are costly to construct and difficult to staff.
I intend to be brief since the debate can last only one-and-a-half hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Usually I would con

cur with the point of view that debates such as this are limited. However, this debate can continue until 11.30 p.m.

Mr. McElhone: Nevertheless, I shall be brief in the interests of other speakers.
I appreciate that there will have to be stringent cuts in local authority programmes. I ask my right hon. Friend, in reviewing the programmes of local and other authorities for which he is responsible, to take account of the needs of sheltered workshops. In Edinburgh on Friday we shall discuss the deep concern felt by the National League for the Blind for its members. We all understand and appreciate the problems of those who are redundant, but for the disabled, especially the blind, redundancy problems are magnified.
I am also very concerned about youth employment. My right hon. Friend has responsibility, within the terms of the rate support grant, for taking action in this regard. Any re-location of rate support grant should be devoted to youth employment services. It is vital that our young people be kept in training. Community involvement projects in Glasgow and elsewhere are worth further support.
The next few years will be very difficult as regards local authority expenditure. In view of rising costs, I am very pleased that the Government have seen the need and are giving increased help to such areas as Glasgow district. I hope that the cry which will doubtless be made later for extra help for rural areas will not blind my right hon. Friend to the need of areas like Glasgow which have very special problems.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State is in a rather unusual position, in that I am the third person in succession to refer to his treatment of local government as generous.

Mr. William Ross: People are beginning to understand me.

Mr. Johnston: However, in fairness, it must be said that in the present difficult economic climate the Government have produced proposals which in the main are designed to sustain basic services.
It remains true, however, that the consequence will probably be an increase of up to one quarter in the rates as referred


to by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). As the rating system is a very regressive and unfair form of taxation, the sooner the Government press ahead with their reform of the system the better.
I should like the Minister to say something more about the effects of the restricted size of this rate support grant. The Secretary of State twice referred to departmental circulars. He said that he intended to advise local authorities on budget control and on ways of curtailing expenditure. In other words, I presume that he proposes to advise local authorities on the priorities they should adopt.
St. Andrew's House advice to local authorities is much more mandatory than the mild word "advice" suggests. The history of Scottish local authorities suggests that if St. Andrew's House seeks to direct local authorities about certain things, there are many ways in which it can achieve its objective without appearing to demand that something be done. It would be a bad start to a reformed structure of local government which from the beginning was intended to give local authorities more independence if they were too closely controlled and directed.
In saying this I accept that in the present economic climate, particularly when dealing with new authorities and new councillors who have to shoulder new responsibilities at an inauspicious time, some guidance from the centre may be required.
Presumably there must in some areas be a cut-back in services or, at any rate, there will probably be no improvement. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned a number of services. We all could list a number of services. Transport is very important in rural areas, particularly with the rise in the price of petrol. There is the question of concessionary fares for the old on public transport. The Department of the Environment Circular 171 in England seems to suggest that that will come to a dead stop. There is the question of the general subsidising of transport in rural areas in the present climate.
The question has been bruited abroad—I am in correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it; the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has

raised the matter in the House—whether some way can be found of assisting the private motorist who has no option but to use his motor vehicle in an area where there is no public transport. If a way were to be found of doing so—and I admit that it is not an easy question—presumably it would have to be through the local authority, and this would presumably involve its contributing to a subsidy.
Then there is the question of education. The Scottish Education Department has been notorious for a long time for being unwilling to improve a school until the children are in the temporary huts attached to it. The feeling of dissatisfaction in the teaching profession, of which the Secretary of State has had recent and perhaps uncomfortable experience, cannot be separated entirely from the conditions in which it works. Teachers' feelings will be exacerbated if they are faced with yet another cut-back in expenditure on buildings.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) referred to social work, and it is a fact, certainly reflected in my postbag, that the effect of the present economic climate is that the work load of the social work department is rising sharply, because all sorts of people are getting into difficulties which they would not be getting into but for the present economic climate. Our priorities are wrong if we cut back on social expenditure at a time when social need is intensifying. I should prefer not to have new roads to being unable to help people in trouble.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): Except the A9.

Mr. Johnston: The Minister of State is unkind to me.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Unusually unkind.

Mr. Johnston: If I had to make the choice, at the end of the day my priority would be helping people rather than having the A9, necessary though that road is. As circulars are to be issued on the subject of the curtailment of expenditure, I should like to hear precisely what the priorities are.
As regards oil development areas, I understand that a statement will be made


on Friday about the Scottish Development Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] A little bird told me this the other day. Little birds are often well informed.

Mr. Younger: Why Friday?

Mr. Johnston: I am not responsible for making Government statements and, therefore, am not to be questioned on that.
It is worth asking whether the Scottish Development Authority will be able to channel in advance oil money into local authority areas with particular infra-structural pressures because of oil development. I do not see why one should not ask whether there are possibilities of augmenting what is available in rate support grant from other sources. That would be one possible source. Equally, I sometimes wonder whether the 10½ per cent. general loan rate of the European Investment Bank is made sufficiently widely known to local authorities, because that is an attractive rate of interest for large projects.
Reference has been made to the new distribution formula. Despite the disclaimer of the Secretary of State, the formula seems to many of us to underestimate the problems of the rural areas. I put it no more strongly than that, because the Secretary of State has said that there will be a review and supplement. I hope that this matter will be fairly considered.
Like the hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns and Queen's Park, I accept that the Government have sought to do the best they can in the circumstances. But the sooner the rating system is substituted by a fair and understandable system the better. I wonder how many hon. Members, let alone members of the public, understand the complications in the documents issued. The Secretary of State shakes his head. It would be worth while someone trying to simplify these documents so that they can be readily understood, because people are not able to make proper decisions if they do not properly comprehend the basis on which the computations are made.
That said, basically I should like to hear more clarification of the Government's social priorities in expenditure in the coming year.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I, too, am pleased with the priorities which my right hon. Friend has struck in relation to the rate support grant. I am delighted that he has not cut expenditure on education and library services. I think that most Scottish people are prepared to pay extra for what they regard as absolutely vital services to the community. One lesson which we all take to heart is that if we want improvements in a service money does not grow on trees and we must be prepared to pay for them.
I was pleased to note that there is to be an increase of about 8 per cent. in real terms in the expenditure on social work, although, bearing in mind the situation which we shall be in during the next two or three years, I wonder whether an 8 per cent. growth will meet the needs of the social work services. However, we shall not be able to answer that question for perhaps 12 or 24 months.
I take issue with some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone)—and not because Queen's Park defeated Ayr United on Saturday. My hon. Friend referred to the geriatric services. Like him, I naturally regret that no allowance has been made for further expansion of the home help service. But we are realistic enough to understand that the Secretary of State has had to strike priorities, and priorities within priorities. It is possible for the community to make up for the loss of growth in such services by community action.
Let me give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an example from my constituency. One of the helpful byproducts of two major mining strikes in South Ayrshire has been that we have compiled in many years street registers of elderly and disabled people. I mention one area in particular—Bellsbank, in Dalmellington. There is a street warden system in which someone in almost every street looks after the elderly and disabled and can report when something untoward happens and so arrest the development which carries an old person to the stage of needing a home help and ultimately into a geriatric hospital.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ask his Department to see


how the matter is dealt with in that part of Ayrshire and consider whether lessons can be learned for wider application in Scotland? I acknowledge that that is a rural area and a mining community, but it might be possible to adopt and operate such a system elsewhere. It is extremely beneficial for the old people and the disabled, but it is of even greater benefit to the community because it becomes involved with the problems of such people.
I take the gravest exception to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park about geriatric hospitals being human filing cabinets. He said that one of the difficulties is the staffing of such hospitals. How are we to staff geriatric hospitals if Members of Parliament relegate them, in the hierarchy of the hospital service, to places to which people are consigned like human filing cabinets? We should be going round geriatric hospitals and talking to the staff and patients in them. We should be talking to the area health boards, which have done a tremendous amount of work in the last 10 or 15 years to upgrade geriatric hospitals.
I should like to refer to a geriatric hospital in my constituency, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is present I shall acknowledge the contribution which he made in this respect. Some years ago, when he was a Minister, I asked him to visit Holm-head Hospital in Cumnock when he was at Ballochmyle. He did so, and later we received the money necessary to improve the accommodation there.
Holmhead Hospital is not a human filing cabinet. It is one of the most friendly hospital units—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is taking the credit. He might have been the Minister after the hon. Member for Cathcart left the Department, but the man who wrote the letter to me saying that the matter was going forward was the hon. Member for Cathcart. Anyone who visits Holmhead Hospital will find it to be one of the friendliest hospitals is is possible to find anywhere. The patients receive a great deal of loving care and attention from the nursing staff, not only when they are being paid to work but in the general

attitude which they and the community adopt to the hospital.
Rather than have fewer geriatric hospitals, if we maintain and improve the standard of our medical services more old people, including some of us, will require geriatric accommodation and the provision of geriatric care. If we do our job correctly, the old people in the geriatric hospitals will be returned to their homes and taken into the care of the home help service.

Mr. McElhone: I pay tribute to the excellent street warden service which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but it is a rare example. I echo his tribute to the Bellsbank geriatric unit. Perhaps it is a wonderful unit; I have not visited it. But I have visited other geriatric units. I repeat that, with antibiotics, people are often kept alive as vegetables. The serious matter is that young chronic sick people, because of lack of proper accommodation, are also in these units. No one who visits such units can be happy about the situation. If we provide more home help and home nursing services, we shall prevent people from going into geriatric units. I do not say that we should not have geriatric units; I believe that we have too many.

Mr. Sillars: Without being arrogant, may I say that I have probably been in more geriatric units than has my hon. Friend. I was a member of the regional hospital board, which made fantastic efforts to expand high-quality accommodation in geriatric units. I have been in geriatric units in the Argyll constituency, in the Lanarkshire area and elsewhere and I have always been impressed by the standards and by the staff. It is a foolish waste of time for us to argue that there will not be a requirement for the extension of geriatric services, because there will be.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) talked of striking priorities between road development and social services. That is perhaps the most difficult area of decision for the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office. We delude ourselves if we believe that we should not on occasion put a high priority on infrastructure which has a direct bearing on what Scotland can do industrially. In one year or another we should perhaps


put more emphasis on raising our industrial capacity to enable us to live as a trading country in the future. We should spend money on consumption services in return for a future growth of wealth. It is our ability to continue to create wealth that will determine the level of services. I do not complain about the A9; I simply wish that it was dual carriageway all the way.
I wish to raise with the Minister of State a question on House of Commons Paper 122, paragraph 19, which deals with roads and transport. I should like that passage to be explained to me in relation to the Labour Party's manifesto commitment to assist public transport, especially in the rural areas. I acknowledge that there are difficulties in city areas, but there are also peculiar problems of public transport in rural areas. The Labour Party recognised this when it wrote that passage in the manifesto. How does the rate support grant square with our manifesto commitment?
My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had an exchange on this subject. My hon. Friend said that this was principally a matter for the local authorities. He went on to say:
The main responsibility must be with local authorities to identify local needs, so that assistance may be made available. There is nothing to prevent their taking that action at present."—[Official Report, 20th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1311.]
We all know that there are enormous rateborne constraints on a local authority's ability to meet rural transport needs. That is why we said in the manifesto that a Labour Government would do something about it. I read into the answer given by my hon. Friend on 20th November that the Government would do something by channelling extra resources to the local authorities to allow them to apply rural transport solutions in their own areas. Will my hon. Friend say what extra resources we are putting towards that promise in the manifesto? The people who live in rural areas have been in even graver difficulty since the October election because of the increase in petrol prices. Whether they be workers or people who would not like to be termed working class, there are many who rely upon public transport in the rural areas.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Hector Mono: It is not often that I am in agreement with

the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), but with the two main arguments he has put forward, on rural transport and geriatric hospitals, I entirely agree. I am glad that the Conservative Government took a particular interest in the hon. Gentleman's area and improved the facilities there.
As the Secretary of State said, this is probably the most important single measure to be presented to the House each year because it affects the whole of the Scottish nation in relation to the rates and the services provided. That is why I join other hon. Members in welcoming the substantial increase in the grant this year and the two increase orders. One must have doubts that the grant will be sufficient to cope with inflation at its present level. As the Secretary of State said, he may have to bring in later a further increase order.
The Government should make a special publicity effort during the next few months to impress upon the Scottish public that rating in the coming year is for ten and a half months. That will cushion the impact of the increase in rates by making the rate bill less than it would have been over 12 months. In 1976–77 there will have to be a steep increase to cover the longer period of 12 months. We should not allow the Scottish public to be "conned" into thinking that they are getting away with a smaller increase this year when it is being stored up for the future. It would be worth while for all hon. Members and the Government to explain that this arrangement arises from the Bill which is now going through the House and the necessity for a change in the financing year. If people do not understand that, it will come as a nasty shock to them.
To speak for a moment in broad terms, I want better services to be provided locally, always understanding that we are having a difficult time in providing resources for them in the coming year. With the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), I believe that we should give greater importance to social work. It should have the same priority as education and housing. I accept that it will cost money, but I hope that social work will not be forgotten if a further increase order is brought forward. There is no doubt that


we must put more resources into the services, and I feel particularly strongly about social work.
Speaking as a former councillor, I found it terribly depressing not to be able to move forward with ideas for improving services. If councillors are continually pruning back, it may be good for the ratepayer in that year but it often builds up trouble in years to come. I hope that more resources will be available for developing services such as social work. It is a young service, and its potential is still a long way away.
If we are to restrain expenditure, let us try to cut out some of the junketings and celebrations to mark the end of some authorities. I notice that the city of Glasgow is to spend £150,000. I would much rather see that money spent on a geriatric home or a recreation centre. Expenditure of that nature would be remembered over the years as a worthwhile exercise rather than if it were spent on a few commemorative mugs and a jolly party.
I am glad that the Secretary of State announced an increase in grant in the coming year from 68 to 75 per cent. I take it that the figure of local authority expenditure is based on a mathematical calculation which was made as far back as November. I accept that it must be made some months before an order is presented, but I wonder how much inflation has been built into the figure. Has the Department allowed a 25 per cent. inflation rate for the coming year? It is better to try to make the original calculation as accurate as possible rather than proceed by increase orders from time to time. If the Government have budgeted on the November figure, the final figure could be out by as much as 25 per cent. in the coming year.
I have one or two questions to ask about the Houghton award. Let me say at the outset that I am glad that the award was made. We must appreciate that from this month education authorities will pay out a lump sum and the increases will be back-dated to May. This will run many of the present authorities into substantial sums on overdraft. We must appreciate that they will spend a large sum on interest payments, and this will be a charge on the rating account between now

and May. No doubt another order will be brought in to deal with the situation, but I hope that the Secretary of State will go further and increase the order to cover the situation when Houghton is implemented in April. The present authorities are very keen to clear up the account before they hand over in May. This would be very much to the benefit of finance officers of both present and future authorities.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire spoke about rural transport. Sufficient resources should be brought into the order to cover the increase in expenditure on rural transport which will be essential in the coming year. But, as I understand the situation, concessionary fares will be the responsibility of the regions. But in regard to subsidy the bus companies, in providing services, will represent a concurrent responsibility between region and district. Bus companies are asking for increases of subsidy. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State has allowed a sufficient margin within the order to cover inevitable demands by the bus companies in providing services. It is essential throughout Scotland to provide concessionary fares for the old and the disabled, and I hope that a sufficient amount will be allowed for that element of expenditure.
I should like to turn to the topic of community councils. The Department recently issued a document on this subject, and I noted that the Minister of State in the other place said that the setting up of these councils was still some way off. I believe that the sooner they are set up the better. I should like to see them take over within weeks of the changeover in May so that there can be as much continuity as possible. The departmental publication to which I referred said on page 36:
The establishment and servicing of community councils will call for a measurable commitment of staff resources by local authorities and probably for the appointment of liaison officers.
Have the Government allowed for the element of finance for community councils in the rent support grant? It is important that the councils get off the ground in the coming financial year. I hope that we can be given an assurance on that point.
I turn to a slightly controversial subject, on which it is true to say that both the Government and the Scottish National Party have had a bad week. I refer to grant-aided schools. Some local authorities send pupils to grant-aided schools and pay the fees. Does the order allow for the increase in fees to be covered by the education authorities which send children to grant-aided schools?
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) rightly raised the issue of the distribution formula and general allocation of the grant. If possible, it would be helpful for the House and the local authorities to hear in more detail from the Minister of State about the transitional arrangements. Some authorities will be faced with very steep increases. If these can be held down by the transitional arrangements, so much the better.
Where do the new authorities stand in the set-up which will operate after May in relation to pooled expenditures in such matters as list D schools? The Minister of State must clear up the issue of the weighting of the density or distribution grant between the rural areas and the central belt. Most of the authorities in the periphery—Dumfries, Galloway, Grampian and the Highlands—firmly believe that the weighting is far too heavily in favour of the central belt and that they will, therefore, have a disproportionately high rate increase. I should like further clarification on that point.
I am concerned, too, about the position of rural properties which do not enjoy the benefit of sewerage and water schemes but have to pay the full rate. The Minister of State, Department of the Environment said in a Written Answer in November that it had been decided in England and Wales to give 50 per cent. rating relief to domestic properties not connected to sewerage facilities. Will that apply in Scotland, because in many rural areas up to 50 per cent. of properties do not have sewerage or water services since it is not practical to provide them? Will these properties benefit from the Bill which is now in Committee?
The Press, particularly the correspondence columns, and the other media are hammering away at local authority salaries, but I wonder whether they are being fair since these are very closely

watched by the Staff Commission. When the new authorities take control in May, I think it will be proved that if the services are the same and the staff is the same the increase in salaries will be minimal. We must accept that for years the Government have been putting more and more responsibilities on local authorities. The authorities are facing heavy inflation, and rates are likely to go up. This increase, however, is not only on account of salary rises, and we have to be fair to local government staffs, who do a good job in Scotland.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) said in the debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. If I had been able to catch your eye on that occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have tried to make the case for some form of rating reform.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question of rating reform is entirely outwith the scope of the order.

Mr. Buchanan: I would have tried to make the comments at that time.
Today we are discussing the rate support grant. It is only the follow-up to many similar grants which hon. Members have had to discuss because of the complicated state of local government finance. We have had specific grants, percentage grants, block grants and equalisation grants. Glasgow sent a letter to all its Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Minister of State seemed to indicate that Glasgow had missed the point, which suggests that the system is becoming more and more complicated and more difficult to understand.
In his letter my hon. Friend mentions a weighting in the district distribution for loss of population to Glasgow equal to £1·12p per head of population in the Glasgow district. Further on in his letter he estimates that the new grant formula is worth about £10 a head for the ratepayers in the city of Glasgow. Is the £1·12p included in the £10 per head?
I support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) for special help for the city of Glasgow. We do not need to


tell the Minister the position in which Glasgow finds itself. Its heart is in a state of dereliction and dilapidation, which is frightening away industry. Glasgow needs more help to attract industry and jobs. High rating is a deterrent to industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park is correct. If areas are getting help because of the special circumstances of the oil development, there is a case for giving Glasgow substantial help because of its unique situation.
I want finally to talk about social work. I am glad to note that expenditure on it is increasing. My hon. Friend the Minister of State did a marvellous job when piloting the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 through the House, but social workers and the Act have come in for a lot of unjust criticism. The social workers and panel members are trying to do a humane and understanding job. Unfortunately the finance set out in the order does not seem to be finding its way into the necessary area of residential and field work resources.
It is strange that boys and girls are waiting from six to nine months for a place in a list D school. After the panels have dealt with the case they have nowhere to send the boy or girl for remedial treatment. There are only 26 beds in the Glasgow district for mentally disturbed adolescents. When the boy or girl returns to the normal school, the whole school is upset.
Larchgrove Assessment Centre is licensed to hold 70 adolescents. At present there are 103 there and 140 are awaiting entry to list D schools, and they are waiting from six to nine months. It is obvious that if the Social Work (Scotland) Act is to operate as it should, more finance must be directed into residential and field work. The social workers and panel members cannot deal fairly with the cases because the resources are not there. Therefore, they cannot give the remedial treatment necessary to the boy or girl who is sent to them for assessment and they come in for unjust criticism. I again appeal to my hon. Friend to increase the expenditure considerably on social work. This is necessary if the Act is to work properly.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: First, I shall say a word or two about the oil-affected areas. I shall then return to the consultation that took place with local authorities and the committee which decided on distribution.
It appears that the sum set aside for the oil-affected areas in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is £2½ million out of a total of £664 million. If that is the wrong figure I shall be glad if the Minister will correct it. If that is the case, it seems to be a very small amount to support areas which have such a tremendous strain on their present resources. Many authorities have been investing heavily in infrastructure and this has been a great additional burden on their rate resources. The Government propose that for 1975–76 a special portion of the needs element will be distributed to authorities which are in special need. That is to be determined by developments relating to North Sea oil. But it will not be given for any services or works not essential to the main activities of exploration and extraction.
It appears that the infrastructure which is required in the event of refining or for petrochemical projects will be excluded. Will the Minister elaborate on that point? Is any alternative proposed to assist local authorities which are faced with that kind of expenditure?
Last year the rates in the Highland Region rose considerably. The rates in Ross-shire rose by 15p or 19 per cent. In Inverness-shire they rose by 28 per cent., in Sutherland by 15p and in Orkney by 11p. Naturally the thought of another increase in rates causes considerable alarm in those areas.
There was allegedly considerable consultation with the local authorities earlier last year, and I must say a word or two about the kind of consultation that took place. On 28th November there was issued from the Scottish Office to the chief executives of the regions a massive document containing a host of information and suggestions. It was issued, as I have said, on 28th November and comment was asked for by 15th December. Naturally, many of the regions felt that the time allowed was inadequate. If I draw attention to one or two of the points in the


document, I think it will be clear why the regions felt that a great deal more time should have been given for comment and discussion.
In page 3, paragraph 9, we read:
We think it is necessary to correct the apparent bias of the present distribution formula in favour of the more rural areas and that a weighting for population density would be a suitable means of doing this.
Straight away, people living in rural areas will be badly treated if that proposal is carried out.
It does not finish there. There are other matters in the document which prove exactly what a great many of those who served on the committee must have felt. For example, in page 6, paragraph 18, the effect of the recommended changes is described. We there see the region plus district poundages for 1972–73 and the estimated effect of changes in grant distribution on region and island areas. We find that the effect on the Highland Region, for example, will be an increase of plus 7½2p and in the Grampian Region an increase of plus 8½9p. There is a plus increase practically everywhere, with the exception of the Central Region, where there is a decrease of 0½1p, and the Strathclyde region, where there is a decrease of 4½7p.
Those figures caused great consternation, particularly in the Highland Region. It is perhaps not surprising that the chief executive, after he had examined the document, wrote back to the Scottish Office pointing out a number of weaknesses which he and the council felt that it contained. The first was that it was wrong to alter the basis of distribution in the first year. The second was that the proposals were in danger of confusing both authorities and the public, because where the rate support grant was poor the public would have difficulty in deciding where the blame lay—whether on the poor rate support grant or on re-organisation. He felt that so much was contained in the document that there should have been an opportunity not only for discussion among officials of the council, with perhaps the chairman of the appropriate committee, but for public discussion as well, since the matter would affect each new region very much and it was natural that the authorities and the public would want to consider it.
In reply to the telex communication sent by the Highland Regional Council there came another letter from the Scottish Office, dated 17th December and addressed to the chief executive. In the fourth paragraph, the writer commented:
I am, of course, glad to hear that the Highland Council have been exercising strict economy in budgeting for next year's expenditure. I really do not see how the grant proposals can possibly require any increase in the expenditure for which you have to budget.
I am not in a position to substantiate the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about regional councils saving or not saving, but I want to tell the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the Highland Regional Council has gone out of its way to cut back on expenditure wherever possible for next year. Its budgeting is extremely sensitive, and it decided that at this time it would be quite wrong to be extravagant in its demands.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a little naughty of the Opposition Front Bench to make these sweeping assertions, because when one takes the trouble to inquire about them in many of the regions—I do not know about the Highlands but it is certainly the case with the Lowland regions—one finds that they tried all they could to cut back on expenditure, much of which they could have granted.

Mr. Gray: I can speak only for the Highland Region, although there have been some rather wild stories about what has been going on in some of the other regions. There has been a certain amount of evidence in the Press in different parts of the country. We have read about very large limousines being purchased here and there, and this has terrified people to some extent.

Mr. Dalyell: Who has purchased them? People are making statements without evidence.

Mr. Gray: I read that this had been the case in the Grampian Region.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It is Tory-controlled.

Mr. Gray: I am not making any party point. If I am offending some of my friends, it is too bad. I am giving an example. There was a Press report, which I assume was accurate, of a very large


limousine being bought in that region. I would have thought that something of much less size would have been adequate in this day and age.

Mr. Dalyell: Who bought the limousine, and for what purpose?

Mr. Gray: I am sure that—

Mr. Dalyell: Thet hon. Gentleman does not know, and he must admit that he does not know.

Mr. Gray: If the hon. Gentleman wants a direct answer, I am sure that if he tables a Question to his right hon. Friend he will be able to ascertain it.

Mr. Dalyell: The obligation is not on me. If statements like that are made in the House of Commons, the least we can ask for is supporting evidence. The hon. Gentleman should be a bit adult about it.

Mr. Gray: We have already told the hon. Member for West Lothian the region involved. Any more than that, he can find out for himself. He is quite able to do that.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not making the assertion.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman wants to know.
However, the Highland Region has been exemplary in not carrying out this kind of exercise. But as we move on and think again of what was contained in the letter sent to my region, it is very revealing that in the penultimate paragraph the writer from the Scottish Office said:
I think it must be inferred that the Committee considered that in the past the authorities in the Highlands have received a disproportionately high proportion of the grant and that this 'unfair advantage' must be reduced to some extent.
I wonder who could have been influencing the members of that committee, because certainly that statement was not greeted with any joy in the Highlands. I wonder whether it could be that eminent lady Mrs. Ellen McCulloch, who is the treasurer, I believe, of Glasgow City Council.

Mr. MeElhone: An excellent lady.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My constituent.

Mr. Gray: A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). No doubt she votes for him too. The point is that this lady has said:
We had argued for a new formula for the distribution of grant so that urban areas would get a better share than the rural and Highland areas.
If the committee was listening to that sort of statement from that lady, I am not surprised that a letter such as that to which I have referred was written to my region.
I am not at all happy about this matter. I am very glad to have the Secretary of State's assurances that this whole matter will be looked at again before another year passes. I assure him that there are many people in many regions who welcome his statement of the increase in total in grant but who are far from happy about the distribution. The Highland Region is certainly not happy about the distribution.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: In speaking very briefly about the rate support grant, it may be appropriate for me to follow up what has just been said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). He made some play about the purchase of a limousine. It is not with a great deal of satisfaction that I can say that Argyll and Bute District Council has gone even better by purchasing a castle.
I do not want to be too long-winded about this matter. There has already been a great deal of unnecessary discussion. I begin by echoing some of the remarks, made chiefly by hon. Members on the Opposition side, about rural areas. It is a wee bit ironic that they are making such great play about rural areas when the future of my rural area, at least in my consideration, has been made very bleak by the inclusion of the area in the Strathclyde Region—even though Lord Wheatley in preparing his report did not put it there but put it into the Highland Region. Hon. Members may think that this is something of the past, but in some respects it is still remembered with a great deal of displeasure by most of the people in the present county of Argyll.
However, to come to more modem times I want to comment on the question of oil developments. Clearly, in various


parts of Argyll we are very concerned about how these sums of money are to be expended. I share the views of other hon. Members in questioning whether the sums which have been laid aside for this purpose will be sufficient. We have widely scattered areas which will be affected. I have great admiration for all those hon. Members who make so much play about the A9. There is another route which affects oil developments, and that is the A82 Loch Lomond road. Parts of it are being repaired but it is a shame and disgrace that its improvement has been held up for such a long time.
I come now to rural transport. Few areas of Scotland have a greater stake in this issue than Argyll. Yesterday morning I received a delegation in my drawing room comprising people who live on the Isle of Luing. Their only connection, not only with the mainland but with all the services such as the doctor and the district nurse, is via the ferry called the Cuan ferry. Next week the ferry charges are to rise by 100 per cent. The service is operated by the local authority. This is an example of how important transport is in the rural areas. It is vital that we ensure that no changes made in the rate support grant affect these services. This will be more important when such services are transferred to large bodies which do not necessarily have the same knowledge of the problem as the smaller local authorities.
I have made a habit of speaking briefly in this House. It is a great feat and one which I commend to other hon. Members. There are, however, two other points I would like to touch upon which are not entirely germane to my argument. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) referred to a remark by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) concerning geriatric units. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I have been to every geriatric unit in Argyll. The hon. Member will know that there is perhaps a larger proportion of geriatric units in certain parts of Argyll than in other parts of Scotland. It is important that the morale of those associated with caring for the people in these units should be maintained at the highest level.

Mr. McElhone: I do not wish to pursue this point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Frankly I have been in some doubt as to whether we should have gone in such depth into the issue of geriatric units in this debate. I hope that the hon. Member will be brief and will finish this subject.

Mr. McElhone: I appreciate your concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not want my remarks to be misconstrued. I am not against having a number of these units but I was saying that we should put more emphasis on the voluntary spirit and on home helps. In this way we could ensure that many of these people do not go into such units.

Mr. MacCormick: I accept what the hon. Member says. I hope he will accept that it is right that there should be no shadow of doubt in the minds of the people who work in these places that we greatly appreciate their services.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) spoke of community councils. In rural areas such as Argyll these councils will be playing a vital part in the local government structure. If we are to regard local government as something which is evolving, we must assume that these councils will become more important. I certainly hope that this happens. Once a Scottish Assembly is in operation and the rôle of the regional councils diminishes, I hope that these community councils will become more important.
One thing above all which concerns those we represent is the amount of rates they pay. I should like to know the global effect of regionalisation on the rates.

9.6 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is a great fear in isolated communities about the maintenance of rural bus services, which are already making huge demands for subsidies. There is a risk that the inclusion of a subsidy for rural transport services in the overall grant will mean that the difficulties of rural communities may be overlooked.
Only £2½ million of the increased grant of £680 million has been allocated to local authorities which have to invest in oil-related infrastructure. That is not enough. With houses, schools, hospitals, roads and so on, they will be under tremendous pressure. Inverness-shire had


great problems last summer with escalating costs. A circular to local authorities confirmed that provision for oil-related infrastructure would not qualify for special assistance. There seems to be a strong case for reconsidering this and making sure that the terms of the circular are more broadly framed. The extraction of oil is very important, and it seems that the sums required will be far greater than anticipated.
As a result of the Government's decision on the grant-aided schools, the chairman of the education committee in Edinburgh has said that he may have to make a specific request to the Government. He believes that the number of parents applying for their children to enter comprehensive schools will put a much greater burden on the ratepayers. I have inquired of headmasters but the precise numbers of pupils involved are not available. The director of education has asked for applications by 14th February, and as soon as the information is available I shall put it before the Minister.
Edinburgh Corporation has been pressing for the completion of an outer city bypass since 1947. It has shown immense patience, and the residents hope that some action will be forthcoming or at least that the Government will make their position clear.
I hope that the Minister will keep these matters under review. One feels strongly that the people of Scotland want a simpler form of taxation. Anything that he can do to achieve that will be greatly welcomed.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: The most encouraging remark made by the Secretary of State was that the local authority associations had requested his advice on how they could effectively save money in the current situation. I gather that the Secretary of State would issue a circular giving advice to the associations on how to do that. I look forward eagerly to seeing the advice of the Secretary of State. Before the circular is drafted, will the Minister arrange for a debate in which hon. Members can make suggestions as to how they think savings in local government expenditure can be made? The Government should arrange

to set up special permanent units to advise local authorities on saving money.
There is a great deal of concern about how councillors should tackle the difficult question of avoiding needless waste of money. There is now an unusual situation. The termination of the old authorities is a temptation to councillors to spend up to the hilt every penny they have before the old authorities disappear. I am the last to act as Scrooge and to object to any reasonable marking of the end of an old authority. However, some of the authorities have exceeded what is reasonable. That is a symptom of an attitude towards spending of which we should be critical, and I make no apology for being critical now.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that in Glasgow the winding-up of the corporation is to be celebrated by the expenditure of £156,000. Perhaps that is not a large sum in terms of Glasgow's total expenditure. However, of the sum mentioned it is proposed to spend £56,000 on the purchase of special mugs to commemorate the occasion. It may be thought appropriate in the circumstances that special mugs should be bought. However, I would have thought that the purchase of 56 mini-cars for the use of disabled people in the city would have been a far more appropriate, popular and useful way of spending that £56,000. I hope that even now a suggestion could be made by the Minister in that case.
Celebrations are also planned in Aberdeen. Each of the 37 council members will receive an inscribed silver dish. I am not sure how much a silver dish costs or whether it is made of real silver. However, if that is true, it is going beyond the score to celebrate in that way, particularly at a time like this.
Then there is the tremendous expenditure made by Grangemouth with the distribution of £480,000-worth of gifts worth £60 apiece to each of the 8,000 tenants in the town. That is very nice for the ratepayers and tenants there. Although those people are proud of their traditions, I feel that is going a little too far. We should say that we hope that that will not get out of hand.
I do not subscribe to the wholesale view that the salaries paid to the new


officials are ridiculous and should be condemned out of hand. An official taking over a large new authority must be properly paid. When one official replaces a considerable number of officials in previous authorities, there is not necessarily an increase in the charge to public funds. There should be, and in many cases there is, a saving.
On the other hand, there are one or two cases which need examination. Why are increased salaries paid to officials who have not got greater responsibilities—in-deed, to officials who have lesser responsibilities? For instance, in many respects the chief executive of Glasgow District Council has less responsibility, although I admit that there is an increase in the area for which he is responsible. Education is not part of his responsibility. I wonder whether the increase in salary for him is reasonable.
The responsibilities of the chief executive of Fife are no greater than those of the chief clerk of the present authority. We should watch carefully the level of payment in this case.

Mr. Sillars: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "watch carefully"? Does he suggest to the Government that action should be taken to roll back the salaries? If not, why does he continue in this vein?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is being a little churlish. It is surely desirable that this matter should be drawn to the attention of Ministers. I hope that in the contacts that the Department has with local authorities it will let it be known that this sort of thing should be closely watched. It is my experience that that is what the Scottish Office tries to do, and it does it in a helpful way, not in a critical way. We should not feel too inhibited about making criticisms. If the criticisms are without foundation, we shall be told. I shall be happy to withdraw anything that I have said, although I have not made any accusations.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It would be a good thing if, for the record, the hon. Gentleman would specify what the salary increases are in the case of the chief executives of Fife and Glasgow.

Mr. Younger: I can give details, if they will help. The major officials in the Strathclyde Region can expect to be paid

between £11,000 and £11,500, which will give most of them an increase of £2,000 on what they had previously. We should examine that carefully. I understand that senior officials on Edinburgh District Council have received rises ranging from about £1,000 a year to about £3,600 a year, although there is no corresponding increase in their responsibilities. Again I am prepared to be told that I am wrong. I am entitled to make these points and to hold myself open to being told I am wrong, if I am wrong. That is what we are all here for.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Younger: I will not give way. I have done the House perfect justice. I was asked to give details. I have done so. I cannot be gagged in this way by being continually barracked by hon. Members opposite. I have made perfectly reasonable statements. I am entitled to have them treated with respect even by those who do not agree with them. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not bully like this.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) must resume his seat if the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) does not give way.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman is going to bring the debate to a halt I am forced to give way. He is misusing the normal conventions of the House by behaving as he is.

Mr. Dalyell: It is indeed a serious mater when ex-Ministers in reply to my hon. Friend make fantastic innuendoes. What is being said here is that somehow or other, improperly, the newly elected councillors have connived with officials to give them salaries greater than they should have. What other inference are we to draw from what has been said? I find it astonishing that first one ex-Minister and then another ex-Minister—people who should know better—make such sweeping statements without having bothered to find out what the facts are. I have bothered to find out the facts. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Younger: I hope that I am not being unfair to the hon. Gentleman,


because I usually try to be fair, but I can only imagine that he is determined to make a row about something over which no row exists. He has put words in my mouth. I never suggested that there was anything which was in the slightest way improper. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must stand by his words. He indicated that I said that something improper had taken place. I said no such thing; I say no such thing. He indicated that I suggested that there was connivance between officials and councillors. I said no such thing; I say no such thing. The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to me. I have made a perfectly fair point with which I am sure the Minister will deal.
I should like to raise three other points. The first relates to the question of allowances for councillors. During the proceedings on the Local Government Bill we discussed what the allowances should be and, indeed, whether there should be allowances. What consideration has the Minister given, in connection with the rate support grant, to the level of allowances which will be paid? I recollect that when the Bill was proceeding assurances were given by myself, or perhaps by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, that the Minister would be consulted on the methods of payment of allowances which the authorities would adopt.
I said that we would ensure that the allowances were reasonable in the terms of the assurances given in the debates. I have heard one or two suggestions by local government people that some practices have grown up south of the border which I hope will not grow up in Scotland, such as paying allowances to councillors purely for carrying out "surgeries" with their constituents. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he is keeping a close watch on this matter—if I am allowed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to say such a thing, which I doubt.
The Secretary of State said that the question of staff numbers was being carefully considered by him but that he was not allowing for increases in staff. He should be allowing for reductions in staff, because one of the objects of the reorganisation into larger units was to achieve over-all reductions in staff. We hoped that that would happen.
I wish to ask a question about the phasing arrangements which the Secretary of State mentioned. I hope that the Minister will give some more information on the phasing arrangements where rates will be severely different under the new authorities. Will he say whether the three-year phasing period will mean that the difference in rates between one authority and another will be brought together in the three-year period? What will happen if during the second and third years the rate increases, as almost certainly it will? Will the phasing be altered in the second and third years, and at what point will the differences meet?
The difference could be considerable if one takes the lower rates in some existing authorities with the rates in some of the new areas. For instance, I understand that in the burgh of Monifieth the rate is 53p in the pound and in Dundee city the rate is 104p in the pound. The increase is pretty drastic even with phasing. I should like to know how the system will work.
I echo the appeal of many hon. Members to the Minister to say what calculation he made in the rate support grant to allow for increases in support for rural bus services? With the present fuel crisis, it is plain that there will have to be a reappraisal of the help given to rural bus services. Probably a number of them which have not had any help—in fact, they probably have not existed up to now—will have to be given help because of the drastic effect of higher petrol prices, which I entirely understand. I should like to know as much as possible about that.
I general, I join in the welcome that has been expressed for this rate support grant. In the economic circumstances of the country it is a generous settlement. It has to be borne in mind by those who use local government services that the restriction on the development of services, which I entirely accept is necessary, arises from the Government's failure to control inflation. It is their failure that they are having to put right in the order.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Iain Sproat: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sproat.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am rather surprised to be called now, because I expected the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to rise, he having accused of exaggeration three of my hon. Friends in succession. I am glad to see that he intends to make a speech.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that the rate support grant order is a generous one. I wish to direct my remarks to one aspect of the order. My remarks may not sound so charitable as certain remarks made by my hon. Friends. I wish to speak on paragraph 3(3)(b) about the £2·5 million which is to be made available for extra expenses incurred by authorities in oil-related areas.
I welcome the fact that help is to be given, but I cannot welcome the amount of the help, because £2·5 million is derisory. I know nothing of any announcement that may be made on Friday, referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnson). If £2·5 million is the total extra amount that is to be given, it is no more than an insult to the ratepayers in Aberdeen and other oil-related areas in Scotland. I am only thankful that at least the 2p rate threshold has been scrapped. That is something, and, if they are here this time next year, I hope that the Government will not seek to bring back that obnoxious provision.
Apart from being an insult to the ratepayers, the £2·5 million is a totally inadequate response to the oil programme in Scotland. While the whole of Scotland is being given £2·5 million for the oil programme, the Government are giving £4·9 million to the Meriden Co-operative, £3·9 million for the Kirkby Co-operative and £1·2 million for Scottish News Enterprises. The ratepayers in the oil-related areas will note that the Government apparently feel able to give four times as much to those extremely dubious ventures as they are giving for the extra expenses incurred in oil-related areas. The ratepayers are bound to draw the conclusion that Left-wing extremists and trade unions who are involved in dubious schemes will get what they want whereas mere ratepayers can go whistle "Dixie".
It is of little help to my constituents to know that, while their rates are likely to rise by at least 25 per cent. on average, we are still giving aid to oil countries such as Iran, which is awash with oil and does not know what to do with its money. We give Iran £500,000, Iraq £50,000 and Oman £230,000, and so on. That being so, the ratepayers are bound to feel that this rate order is unsatisfactory.
Not only is the £2·5 million too small but it applies to far too small a range of oil-related activities—that is to say, too small if we still follow Circular 84/1974. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said that the circular cut out petrochemical works, refineries and so on. I should like to know whether that still stands, as the 2p rate threshold referred to in the same circular has been dropped.

Mr. Millan: Where are the petrochemical refineries which are to be excluded?

Mr. Sproat: Circular 84/74 refers to any oil-related works and mentions petrochemical works, if my memory serves me right—in other words, expenditure not directly incurred by the local authority in the extraction of oil—and says that any downstream expenditure is not to be eligible.

Mr. Millan: I ask the hon. Gentleman a specific question: where are the petrochemical refineries which are to be excluded?

Mr. Sproat: They are not built yet or we would not be asking for money to build them. That is the whole point of the circular.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Sproat: The Minister will be able to answer this point later if he wishes. The circular defines the oil-related activities fairly sharply, but the order refers simply to
… expenses incurred … in connection with developments relating to exploration for, or exploitation of, offshore petroleum.
Perhaps the Minister in his reply could say whether this means that a tighter definition is finished, or are we still to go by the tight definition in the circular? If we are to go by a broader definition of oil-related activities, will it mean that


local authorities in oil affected areas will be able to obtain some of the money to cover activities such as those which affect Aberdeen? For example, local authorities will face great increases in wages bills because, in competition with oil industries, they will have to pay higher wages. Are the increases likely to be greater than in other parts of Scotland, or will authorities be eligible for extra governmental assistance?
There are many other points which could be advanced, such as the increase in rate burden caused by the extra manpower required to police the oil rigs. I recently asked the Department about a lorry park which is desperately needed in Aberdeen. Will expenditure for such a development fall within the funds available within paragraph 3(3) of the circular? The Minister must realise that he has caused a great deal of confusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said when he mentioned the possibility of payments in respect of loan interest. Could the Minister say what the financial memorandum means when it says that the figure of £2·5 million might rise to £5 million—

Mr. Millan: It does not say that.

Mr. Sproat: I am talking about the £2·5 million in the order. If the money is to be paid to local authorities in terms of the interest on principal, will the money have to be borrowed or will it be included in the capital expenditure incurred by local authorities?

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was sitting here quietly minding my own business when I heard not one but two ex-Ministers of the Crown suddenly indulge in cheap slurs against public servants, and I felt that questions should be asked. Stories about certain local authorities and regional public servants being paid a thousand pounds more than they should be paid, without any evidence to back such statements, is going a little far. It is the politics of innuendo. Before people make such allegations in the House of Commons they should have before them the facts and figures and should take the trouble to go to the authorities and discover the facts.
After the matter was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), I asked a number of questions in depth in my own Lothian region, and I was convinced that everything had been properly carried out. Incidentally, these allegations are being made against people who, night after night, have been sweating their guts out in facilitating the change from one kind of authority to another. We in the House of Commons have not understood how hard local authority employees have had to work in that changeover. It has taken a toll in terms of family ilfe, and many employees have been working 16 hours a day on six days of the week. That is the reality of the situation.
When one looks at the post-tax situation in these inflationary days these allegations that somehow the staff have got together with the elected members and fixed their salaries at a higher rate than might otherwise have been the case is a bit much. Has my hon. Friend the Minister of State the facts available to set the record straight? I hope that it will not go out from this House that there is a body of MPs that believes that local authority elected members and public servants have got together in this way. That is far from the situation. I see the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is nodding. Perhaps he will have the grace on this occasion to withdraw some of the things he said.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is unfortunate that our useful debate has ended on this sour note. Those who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will appreciate that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is accusing him of saying things he did not say and asking him to withdraw statements which he did not make. This is a serious matter, and I hope the Minister will give us some reassurance on the points raised during the debate.
We rarely get good news in the House of Commons these days, and it must have been disappointing to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State to come along with orders which offer a record increase in cash for local authorities and to hear expressions of worry and apprehension about what will happen in the forthcoming year. Although we appreciate that there has been a substantial increase in


the amount of money available, there is no doubt that what hon. Gentlemen have been saying represents the true feelings of those Members and the concern they feel.
Concern has been voiced about various aspects of these orders. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and my hon Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) referred to transport. With the impending change which is proposed in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, the removal of specific grants and the change of responsibility for these under the rate support grant, there is concern that transport, which is so essential in the rural areas, may be neglected. It would help the House if the Minister could give some assurance that in future years there will be adequate provision for the needs of transport in the rural areas.
Concern has also been expressed about distribution. No matter how the money is distributed, there is inevitable concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) expressed the view of some rural communities that they were getting a raw deal under this distribution compared with some populated areas. There has been concern about the provision for oil developments. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West and Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) expressed concern that the sum provided is inadequate to deal with the problems which have been arising.
In addition, there is a growing doubt, as the Secretary of State is probably aware, whether a formula of any sort can do justice to all the local authorities in view of their special problems. It seemed to me, from listening to the debates about the rate support grant and the formula that the hard-working officials of the Scottish Office and the local authorities have been trying to stretch the formula in various ways to try to meet the particular needs of particular areas. I wonder whether it would not be better, instead of having a formula, for the individual authorities to hold negotiations with the Secretary of State. It is becoming more and more difficult to arrive at a single satisfactory formula.
There is a special problem in Glasgow. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) and Glasgow,

Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) touched on the special problem that they believe will arise for their district authority as a result of the reorganisation in May. I was interested to read the report by the Minister of State which was handed to us at the beginning of the debate. One point must be cleared up immediately. Glasgow believes that the present formula will be unfair to it because it will not get what it regards as a fair proportion of the expenditure which the district would carry out. It argued that the distribution formula should take account of expenditure per head. The Minister, understandably and rightly, pointed to the difficulty of arriving at a formula which took account only of actual expenditure. But there was a clear indication in his reply that in his view there was excessive spending by Glasgow. He said:
Glasgow's argument is that the Strathclyde districts should get more because their expenditure per head on district services is, in most cases, well above the average for all districts.
Over the page we read:
On this point the Distribution Committee's report said: 'For districts … we were unable to infer from the figures any direct relationship between expenditure and the objectively measurable needs of the communities concerned.'
In other words, the committee seems to be saying that it cannot say that because an authority spends more its needs are greater. There is clearly an indication that, at least in the committee's view, there is extra expenditure in particular areas, and it seems that it is particularly looking at Glasgow.
There is no doubt that Glasgow has special problems. As the hon. Member for Springburn rightly said, it has the problem of redevelopment. There is the problem that a great deal of industry and many people who were put in Glasgow district under the original proposals are being taken away by the new towns and suburbs. There is the special problem that many of the people and industries that would normally have located themselves in the city are moving elsewhere. One of the many factors influencing them is the rates burden in Glasgow. We are all aware that the burden of rates dissuades some commercial undertakings from staying open and prevents new enterprises from starting up in the city. It will be a major headache for Scotland


and Glasgow if there is a further contraction in industry, commerce and business in Glasgow.
The Minister points out in the increase order for 1974–75 that an increase of about £105 million, which includes the £25 million extra for the reorganisation, takes account of rises in prices and in the pay of teachers, firemen, police and clerical officers. Is it the Government's policy that these increases shall be paid only on rises which come within the social contract? What will be the position if, say, Glasgow, which faces severe strike action by some of its employees, pays sums over and above those agreed in the normal local authority negotiations, increases which are outwith the terms of the social contract? Will the social contract be part of the basis of the increase order, or will the order just be based on the actual increased salaries and wages paid by the local authorities?
The main concern expressed in the House tonight has been that felt by many people in Scotland that next year and this year, in particular, will see a massive increase in local rates. There is every indication that that may happen. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister of State is in agitated conversation with one of his Government colleagues. He should look back to the debate on 4th July, when there was another such cheerful conversation, and when the hon. Gentleman said:
we do not see why reorganisation in Scotland should by itself impose considerably increased local authority expenditure.
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has said "Hear, hear" to that. What splendid sentiments! On that occasion the person who knocked the Minister down and said that he was distressed and aggrieved was the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), now sitting beside him as a Minister. His hon. Friend then said:
I was rather distressed when I heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State say that he did not expect the reorganisation of local government to increase the rate burden. Even the early evidence is that the rate burden throughout Scotland will be substantially increased, not temporarily, but permanently as a result of the reorganisation of local government."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th July 1974; c. 123–130.]

I am sure that the breath of fresh air in the Scottish Office and those splendid sentiments will have an influence on Government policy. I hope that they do.
But why are people concerned about the possibility of a rates disaster in 1975? First, we have the problem of the change of a system. I believe that the Secretary of State is well aware from his previous periods of office that whenever we have a change it is used by the local authorities to have what in some cases is a spending spree. It is only necessary to look at the figures for previous years to see that, while we have had certain increases year by year in local government expenditure, every time we have had a revaluation when the increase can be covered up there has been a substantial rise in expenditure. That has certainly been the case whenever revaluation has taken place. There is a greater opportunity for that problem to arise when we have a reform of local government.
There is also the problem of inflation progressing at a rapid rate. It was disturbing to see in the reports on wage increases which were referred to by the Secretary of State for Employment that increases in the public sector were going ahead far faster than in the private sector.

Mr. Sillars: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is quoting percentages? Is it not the case that a number of public sector settlements have involved people in a low wage category? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 25 per cent. of £40 is not as much as 18 per cent. of £100, which is the sort of figure that might be paid in the private sector?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, he knows that an enormous part of local government expenditure is taken up by wages. He knows that if there is a large percentage increase the effect on the ratepayers will be substantial.
As the Secretary of State said, there is also concern about the way in which funds have been dealt with by local authorities as we approach the changeover. Undoubtedly a great deal of money has been spent from funds which it would have been wiser to pass over to the new authorities. There is also the problem of authorities worrying about the effect on their rates of the changeover. It was


good to hear from the Secretary of State that a three-year transition period is being considered.
We must be aware of the problems. I shall take a case in my own area. The ratepayers of Rutherglen at present pay a rate of 80p. When they move into the Glasgow district they will come into an area in which the present rate is £1·21p. There is the additional problem of housing deficits. That will be a major problem. It is unfortunate that at a time when we are facing a major increase in rates the Government have decided to introduce new legislation which will free local authorities from the statutory liability which they have had under our legislation to review their rates year by year. We know from previous experience that many of the authorities which have the most substantial rate burdens are the ones which are most reluctant to wipe out deficits in their housing accounts.
Bearing in mind that we have a major problem facing us, will the Minister of State tell us precisely what he intends to do if local authority spending gets out of control? I know that it is not an easy problem. It is a problem that previous Conservative Governments and Labour Governments have faced. They have not always come forward with the right answer or a satisfactory answer. It must be galling for Chancellors to impose the most rigid restrictions on spending by central Government in the national interest only to find that often their activities are undermined by remarkable increases in spending and in the rates called for by local authorities.
The Secretary of State was rather savage in what he said about the need to prune and restrict expenditure to the minimum possible level. He also has said in the paper that has been issued on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order:
the growth of public expenditure in demand terms must not be allowed to exceed 2¾ per cent. a year on average over the next four years.
In page 5 of the report it is said:
The Secretary of State has already advised local authorities that increases in staff complements on local government reorganisation cannot normally be considered to be justified.
We have a situation in which the Secretary of State has expressed his own justifiable concern about what may happen over the forthcoming year. He will find

that ratepayers in Scotland in general have the same fear about what may happen. He did not mention any percentage when he was talking about how the rates might go, but I think that we know from our experience south of the border that there have been some astonishingly large increases. We hope that that will not happen in Scotland.
Could the Minister of State indicate what contingency plans he has for local authorities which might disregard the advice of the Secretary of State and impose excessive increases in their rates which would be detrimental to the people of the locality, and could be bad for regional development and attracting industry and commerce? Is consideration being given to monitoring expenditure, as we had for a brief period under the last Government? We did not get much co-operation from some local authorities but it had some deterrent effect on others in getting to certain levels of expenditure or rate rises.
Can the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee of any sort to local authorities that if the rate burden were to increase by, say, more than 20 or 25 per cent. some special action would be taken, as was taken in the case of England and Wales by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Could he also assure us that if he believes a local authority is overspending—is spending more on its services than is reasonable, bearing in mind the state of the economy and the needs of the ratepayers—he will at least send an inquiry team, perhaps of accountants, to that authority to go through the books and make perhaps a public report as to whether the ratepayers are getting value for money?
But the Minister of State is usually scathing about our suggestions. He has shown himself not to be very reasonable. On the other hand, I hope that he will appreciate that we have tried to approach this matter responsibly and reasonably, reflecting the genuine concern felt by ratepayers throughout Scotland about what may be a savage rise in the rates in the forthcoming year. It is no good for the Secretary of State to produce White Papers saying that he insists that local authority expenditure must not increase by more than a certain amount, that he will not allow certain things to happen


and does not approve of them happening, if he is not prepared to use any powers.
We face what could be an extremely serious situation in 1975–76. I hope that the local authorities will respond to the calls made by the Secretary of State, I hope that we shall be told precisely how he intends to deal with those which do not listen to the advice coming from the Government.

9.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): We have had a quite lengthy debate and many detailed points have been raised about individual services. I would not claim that in what I have to say I shall cover all those points, but I shall deal with at least some of the main themes of the debate. I do so in the context of the recognition by the House generally that this is an extremely generous settlement—easily the most generous settlement there has ever been for rate support grant in Scotland. That should be put on record firmly in view of some of the extravagant language used about the previous rate support grant, which basically we inherited from the last Government, and of some of the equally extravagant language used in our debate in July.
Hon. Members on both sides recognise that, if we are to keep rate increases next year down to a tolerable level, there is need for considerable stringency in local authority expenditure. There have been virtually no suggestions in the debate as to how individual services might be reduced, cut back or particularly hardly dealt with so that we can keep local authority expenditure under control.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that we should have another debate about the matter, but this debate is about it. If the Opposition or any other hon. Members have particular suggestions to make about local authority expenditure, this is the occasion one would have expected them to make them. But we have not had one suggestion, except a rather tentative one from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) that we might look at roads—and he rather rapidly withdrew and modified it when I asked about the A9. The hon. Member for Inverness, even if he was

frightened off later, at least moved towards making a suggestion, but apart from that we have had absolutely nothing.

Mr. Monro: What about me?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman made a number of trivial suggestions.

Mr. Monro: I do not think they were trivial.

Mr. Millan: I was not going to deal with all the trivial suggestions made this evening, but I might make an exception in the case of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) if he wishes me to do so. However, nothing has been said by any hon. Member this evening which represents anything like a programme for keeping local authority expenditure under control.
We faced an extraordinarily difficult situation. We made it clear in the covering White Paper for the order for 1975–76 that extreme care would have to be taken by local authorities in their expenditure commitments in the next year and, indeed, that they would not be able to take on any new commitments—I say that in absolute terms—for 1975–76. They will be able to take up only inescapable commitments which arise out of legislation or for other reasons which pre-date the year 1975–76. One has to look at the particular services mentioned in the covering White Paper in that kind of light.
Of course, in education we are taking account of what is an inescapable commitment, which we happily take on: we want to have a growth in the number of teachers as well as in pupil numbers in Scotland. That is provided for in the rate support grant order for 1975–76.
In the case of social work, about which a number of hon. Members have spoken, there is allowance in the year 1975–76 for an increase of about 8 per cent. in real terms. This represents, again, inescapable commitments. It does not represent any new initiatives in the development of these services. I regret very much having to say that, but that is the fact of the situation. But within that expenditure, increased by 8 per cent. in real terms, there will be very substantial improvements in many of the social work services. I think that this is supported on both sides of the House.
I shall not go into particular disputes about geriatric services and so on, except to make the obvious point that there is social work provision here and the need for hospital provision as well. One must look at both services as being complementary. In the Scottish situation in the past there has been, as compared with England and Wales, rather too much emphasis on hospital provision and not enough on local authority provision. In recent years we have tried to tilt the balance. I say that without in any way accepting the criticisms of the tremendous work which I know personally has been done in the hospital services for geriatric patients and, indeed, psychiatric and other patients who are also recipients of social work care.
A number of other particular services have been mentioned. For example, we had the question of rural transport. We are moving over from a specific grant up to 1974–75 to a system of support by the Government for these services through the rate support grant system. This has been deliberately done. We have inherited a policy here. I make no complaint about that, because I happen to think that it is the right policy. This was done specifically to allow increased local initiative and, in particular, increased local initiative in the context of local government reform and the new planning procedures, regional plans and, for that matter, district plans and the rest, which will come under the new reorganised local government set-up.
In calculating the reckonable expenditure for 1975–76 we estimated that there would be an increase in these services of about 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. It may not be as much as some hon. Gentlemen would like but it is a genuine increase and beyond the general increase in the rate support grant for the forthcoming year. If we allow some services to go beyond the average expenditure increase, automatically a number of services have to be kept below the average. I would not be so uncharitable later in the year as to quote back at Tory Members some of their speeches when they write to me pleading for more expenditure in their constituencies.
Any Minister at the Scottish Office knows only too well that many hon. Members who are most vociferous in demanding that public expenditure should be kept under control are also the most

constant correspondents with the Scottish Office, asking Ministers for additional expenditure in every conceivable area which they consider to be of value to their constituents. It is no use paying annual obeisance to public expenditure control at local authority level and then thinking that one can write to Ministers in extravagant terms for the remaining 11 months and 30 days of a year. Unfortunately, that is what happens with some hon. Members.
I shall not go into the details as to whether expenditure on community councils is included in the rate support grant order. The hon. Member for Dumfries raised this point. Obviously many of these matters are quite small in overall terms. They come under the general heading "Other Services". Anything that is an inescapable commitment, anything arising out of legislation which the House has enacted, which the House wishes to see implemented by local authorities, is provided for as reckonable expenditure for 1975–76. That is a matter of principle which is accepted by the Government as well as by local authorities. That is also an answer which applies to many points hon. Members have put to me.
I shall not deal yet again with the issue of grant-aided schools. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made what I thought was the worst argument I have heard on this matter, namely, that this might place an additional burden on Edinburgh ratepayers. He must know that if, as has happened before, there has been Government expenditure directed towards these schools, this has represented a considerable saving for Edinburgh ratepayers which was not taken into account in other ways because the rate support grant is not distributed in a way which takes account of that factor.
If the Edinburgh ratepayers—I wish no set of ratepayers any harm—had to pay a little more for education in the years ahead because of the change of policy here, it would only be natural justice.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is not the Minister aware that it will cost a great deal more to accommodate the children concerned in comprehensive


schools than it will to keep them at the grant-aided schools? What we are complaining about is the additional cost.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman was complaining about the burden on Edinburgh ratepayers. I specifically took his words down. I do not accept the general point. We can debate that on another occasion.
I turn to some general matters arising from the order which relates to 1974–75. We are still in that year and I thought that hon. Members might take some interest in what is happening in the current year. The order for this year includes, apart from the normal reimbursement of increased costs, an extra £25 million, which is probably unprecedented. This is because in the current year we wish to make sure that Scottish ratepayers do not bear a disproportionate burden.
On the latest information, rate increases for 1974–75 are likely to be 15 per cent. That is not a small figure, but in all the circumstances I do not think hon. Members will feel that it is out of the ordinary. It certainly does not justify the extravagant language used by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in the debate on 4th July. Until he mentioned it I had forgotten that debate, and rather than look up my own speech, which I dare say was admirable, I looked up his. This is the sort of thing he was saying in a year when the burden is rising by 15 per cent. He referred to
the simple fact that we are facing an emergency the like of which we have not seen in Scotland for many years".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee; 4th July 1974, c. 149.]
He was talking about "an alarming problem" and "fantastic increases". We have heard the same thing several times at Question Time.
So I do not take the hon. Member terribly seriously in some of the extravagant language that he habitually uses about rates, about education or about virtually anything else.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister confirm or deny that there is an emergency over rates and that rate arrears of Scottish local authorities are at a record level? Has he any information on this? Will he stop being so smooth, super-

ficial and totally complacent about a problem which is causing intense hardship to hundreds of thousands of people? The average of 15 per cent. includes wide variations, the full list of which I have here. The hon. Gentleman said that 15 per cent. is not substantial or significant. Will he now say whether the rate arrears for Scottish local authorities are higher or lower than ever before?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member continually changes his ground. He is not denying the accuracy of the figure I have given. He was forecasting all through the year—indeed, he would have been forecasting today, except that the facts are now available and are against him—substantial increases. I do not consider an increase of 15 per cent. a matter for complacency, but neither do I consider it an emergency the like of which we have not seen in Scotland for many years.

Mr. Monro: In comparison with the 25 per cent. which we are facing now, 15 per cent. seems very mild. But in what other year in the last 10 have we had an average increase of 15 per cent.?

Mr. Millan: In none of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Exactly"]—but, as I demonstrated in the debate in July, the increase in rates was accelerating under the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974. It was in that period, during which we suffered hon. Members opposite, that rates began to take off in this admittedly disagreeable way.
But I have made the point about 1974–75 and I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that speech, which he not unnaturally had tried to forget.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Millan: I want to go on to the figures for 1975–76.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister have any information on my specific question about rates arrears? He has now admitted that the increase for 1974–75 is a record for the 10 years. In view of what I said about an emergency, and the complacent words he has used, may I ask whether he has any information about arrears?

Mr. Millan: I have not used any complacent words. I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member continually uses extravagant and absurd language which he never subsequently attempts to justify. There are problems of rate arrears for local authorities as there are problems of rent arrears. They do not justify the language used by the hon. Gentleman on 4th July. When we discuss the rate support grant, neither the situation in 1975–76, nor what happens in the current year justifies the extravagant language used by the hon. Gentleman this evening.
As regards the situation for 1975–76, the support figure is the highest ever. In the last support grant order debate we heard many arguments about the missing ½ per cent. We heard nothing about the missing ½ per cent. this evening because it has been made up. It was missing when we took over the order left to us by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It was not finalised.

Mr. Millan: The local authorities thought it was finalised, because that was what they told us. We found it disagreeable that they could not have the additional money. However, the missing ½ per cent. has been made up.
There will be an increase of 7 per cent. in 1976, which is the most extraordinary increase ever. It means that the rate support grant for next year will be approximately 50 per cent. higher than the 1974–75 figure. That will be a creditable achievement because the expenditure will not rise by 50 per cent. My right hon. Friend gave that figure in his opening speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was right to point out to the hon. Member for Ayr that the position regarding local authority staff numbers and costs comes about because of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, for which the hon. Member was to a large measure responsible. None of the extravagant claims about wholesale local authority extravagance has been substantiated by anything said by the Opposition this evening. There are isolated instances of what those of us, looking from the outside, consider to be extravagant payment of salaries and staff costs. That is not the overall situation.
It is expressed in the most formidable terms in the White Paper that we do not expect, and have not provided for in 1975–76, increases in local authority staff because of local government reorganisation. I state that categorically. We do not expect and we shall not provide out of Government funds for increases in local authority staff arising out of local government reorganisation on the scale we have heard complained about this evening.

Mr. Younger: My point was that with many fewer authorities there should be a reduction in staff.

Mr. Millan: One would hope for that. I am not sure that there is any great prospect of having our hopes fulfilled. Some local authorities have made the point that they are saving in staff numbers. In some areas a certain number of staff have retired early where there were no places for them. Staff salaries are monitored by the employers' side of the negotiating machinery. The Opposition complain constantly about Government interference with local democracy.
The Government do not determine local staff salaries, nor do we determine local staff numbers. The hon. Gentleman spoke about sending out inquiry teams of accountants. This reminds me of what was to happen with the Housing Commissioners—who never eventuated—going into local authorities to monitor their affairs and tell them how to run things.
That is not the relationship between central Government and local authorities. When the Local Government Bill was going through we were told by Conservative Members that part of the process was that there would be more freedom for local authorities to determine their own affairs. Local authorities—not the Government—determine the salaries and staff numbers appertaining to their officials.
We have said on numerous occasions—I repeat it—that we do not want to see extravagance in staff or in any other way in local government. We welcome the fact that the employers' side of the negotiating machinery is checking up on staff complements and salaries. We hope that when we get this information many of the wild claims about local authority extravagance will be exposed as being


such. If instances of extravagance occur they will be paid for not by the Government but by local ratepayers. Ratepayers must be vigilant to ensure that such things do not occur.
I was asked about the question of oil expenditure. It is rather less than gracious on the part of Conservative Members that a new form of assistance, which they denied local authorities, should be treated in such a thoroughly nagging way as it was, for example, by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who has some kind of fixation about a lorry park in Aberdeen and seems to think that there should be some mention in the White Paper of the lorry park in Aberdeen. That is carrying detailed examination of Ministers to an absurd extent.
We have sent out a form. It is available to hon. Members. The kind of services which will mostly be in question are housing, education, sewerage and roads—the basic services which are involved in oil-related development. We had to get the returns from local authorities in fairly quickly because we wanted to get an estimation of the situation. We believe that the figure of £2·5 million in the order is perfectly reasonable. We have had far less complaint from local authorities than we have had from hon. Members. Local authorities appreciate the fact that we are making this special exception. We must maintain a balance of fairness with other local authorities which have special burdens placed upon them which are not provided for in the rate support grant.
Officials from my Department will be visiting the regions and districts within the next few weeks to discuss the figures that have been brought out in the returns we have already received so that we can finalise this provision and make the distribution to the local authorities concerned. If arising from that some changes are required in the scheme for the next year, we are perfectly willing to consider them. We have started in a way which is very welcome to local authorities generally.
I was asked about an increase order for 1974–75 because of Houghton. We have said that we will introduce the order as soon as possible. Hon. Members must

recognise that there is likely to be only one further increase order for 1974–75, and if we bring this in too soon we shall not be able to take account of additional items of increased costs which may arise before the end of the financial year. We want to work with all possible speed. We take the point about local authorities standing out a lot of money. We want to include everything we can in the increase order. When we come to increase orders for 1975–76 we shall certainly pick up the Houghton salary, increases and anything else not included in actual expenditure as calculated in November 1974.
I come to the question of distribution. A special transitional element is provided for, in a comprehensive paragraph on page 2 of the order, of £5¼ million which will be a distribution within regions to take account of the fact that under the new distribution formula the position of some regions—basically the Strathclyde Region—will improve and the position of others will worsen.
The transitional arrangements for districts within regions will be arrangements to redistribute the burden within the region and not between one region and another. We have provided for the intraregional distribution by making special provisions in the order. The distribution between districts within a region to take account of the fact that in some districts there will be considerably greater increases than in other districts within a region will be dealt with by an order under the 1973 Act which we envisage—this is subject to continuing consultation with the authorities—will be over three years. The hon. Member for Ayr asked whether I could give details. In the nature of things, since the consultations are continuing, I cannot give details, but the order will be available for debate in the House. I shall be happy then to have the matter thoroughly ventilated.
Mention of the question of consultation reminds me that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) complained about consultation generally on the rate support grant this year. In turn I remind him that until last week there was no one local authority association in Scotland representing the interests of the new authorities, which are the authorities concerned with the year 1975–76 for


which we are providing in the main order. This has been a considerable embarrassment to us. I am not attributing blame to anyone. I am simply indicating that no blame attaches to the Government. In the situation which we faced we sent out documents to all the new authorities because we thought that that was the most satisfactory way of dealing with the question.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was undue Glasgow influence in the local government finance working party. He apparently had the report with him; he seemed to be quoting from it. It is a pity that he did not look at the annex which lists the members of the working party. There was one representative from Glasgow and one representative from the Highlands Region. They are both admirable, conscientious and able members of the working party. But I do not think that the Highlands were outnumbered, any more than the Glaswegians or anyone else were outnumbered.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many representatives there were from West Central Scotland as opposed to the number from the Highlands Region?

Mr. Millan: I cannot give the figure. From the counties of cities there were four, from the Convention of Royal Burghs there were three, and from the Association of County Councils there were four. I do not consider that to be an unfair balance between the different regions and districts of Scotland. There was one Glaswegian and one representative from the Highlands. There is a special additional grant for the Highlands in the formula which we are discussing.
The working party took the view, which I strongly endorse, that the previous formula did not sufficiently take account of the special burdens which rested on certain urban areas and produced a net effect in terms of rate burden per head of the population in some urban areas which was unfair to them compared with the rest of Scotland. That is why the changes were made in the formula. It is a direct result of what the working party was attempting to do that the Strathclyde Region, which has more urban areas than have other regions, has gained

at the expense of the other regions. That is laid down explicitly in the report, and there is no mystery and nothing sinister about it.
It is also true that the Glasgow district—although judging by the letter I have received it seems to be remarkably ungrateful—does very well out of the new formula. What has happened in the Glasgow district is that to much emphasis is placed on the district situation specifically and in isolation. What the ratepayer has to consider is the district and regional burden combined, because he pays a combined rate. The fact that some grant goes to the district and some to the region is a matter of considerable interest and is dealt with in great detail. The reasons for the distribution formula are explained in great detail in the working party's report. At the end of the day the ratepayer gets one bill, and it is the overall bill that is important from his point of view.
In this formula which the Government have accepted we have deliberately tilted the balance away from rural towards urban areas because we believe it is right and that it gives a fairer distribution of the grant. I should be delighted to debate that matter at length, but that is the specific intention of the formula, and we shall be reviewing the formula again for next year, when these matters can be considered again.
I have dealt with a number of detailed points and most of the general points that have been raised. I repeat that the settlement is extremely generous to the local authorities. It is a well-deserved settlement because we recognise the burdens that the local authorities face in this year of reorganisation, and the special burdens they face in a period of inflation. It is, nevertheless, a generous settlement, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Millan.]

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Millan.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION ACT 1957

Resolved,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, in its application to this House, be amended as follows:—

'Amendments of Part II

1. Insert at the appropriate places in alphabetical order:—

"The Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

The Health and Safety Executive.

The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and every committee of the Board performing functions of the Board.

The Metrication Board.

The Northern Ireland Electricity Service.

The Review Board for Government Contracts".

2. Omit the entries relating to the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, the Great Northern Railway Board, the Panel of Referees, a standing committee appointed under section 4 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1926, and the Ulster Transport Authority.

3. In the entry beginning "A Development Corporation" add at the end, "or the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968".

In the entry beginning "An Independent Schools Tribunal" for the words from "or under" to the end substitute "or under Schedule 7 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1962".

In the entry relating to the Industrial Estates Corporations for "by the Local Employment Act 1960" substitute "in accordance with the Local Employment Act 1972".

In the entry beginning "The White Fish Authority" for the words from "under section 1" to the end substitute "in accordance with section 1 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 and the committee constituted in accordance with section 2 of that Act".

Amendments of Part III

4. Insert at the appropriate places in alphabetical order:—

"Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards.

Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards in Northern Ireland.

Paid Chairman of an Economic Development Committee.

Chairman of a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

Chairman of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland.

Paid Chairman of a National Economic Development Council Working Party.

Chairman or Vice Chairman of the

National Seed Development Organisation Limited.

Chairman of the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services.

Chairman of the Northern Ireland Council for Nurses and Midwives.

Chairman of the Northern Ireland Staffs Council for the Health and Social Services.

Chairman of a Regional Economic Planning Council.

Chairman of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of the tribunal constituted under section 463 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

Chief Electoral Officer or Deputy Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.

Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner appointed under section 50(1) or (2) of, or Schedule 4 to, the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.

Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland.

Director of International Computers (Holdings) Limited nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

Director of the Peterhead Bay (Management) Company Limited.

Director or Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints.

The Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration."

5. Omit the entries beginning "Accountant appointed by the Secretary of State", "Chairman of the Technical Personnel Committee", "Director of Beagle Aircraft", "Director of Fairfields", "Director of National Cold Stores", "Lecturer or teacher", "Legal Adviser", "Secretary or deputy secretary" (in the composite entry relating to local government officers), "Town clerk or deputy town clerk" (in the same composite entry), "Secretary of the First Scottish", "Solicitor for the Scottish Hospital" and "Superintendent registrar".

6. For the entry beginning "Agent in Great Britain" substitute "Agent for Northern Ireland in Great Britain".

For the entry beginning "Chairman or Reserve Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal", substitute "Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 or Schedule 3 to the Supplementary Benefits &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966".

In the entry beginning "Director of any company", for "or the Local Employment Acts 1960 to 1966" substitute "the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, the Local Employment Act 1972 or Part II of the Industry Act 1972".

In the entry relating to local government officers, for "the council of an urban or rural district" substitute "a district council".

In the second entry beginning "Member of an Agricultural Marketing Board" omit "by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland".

In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Secretary of State" omit from "or of an agricultural" to the end.

In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern

Ireland" for "Minister" substitute "Head of the department or Minister"

In the entry beginning "Officer of the Board of Referees" for "287 of the Income Tax Act 1952" substitute "26 of the Capital Allowances Act 1968"'.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: My interest in the Hydrographic Service is long-standing and practical. I have been a user of Admiralty charts and publications all my adult life. Like so many navigators, professional and amateur of every nationality, I have depended upon them for certainty and safety. They are the best and most accurate of those available for public use published by any Navy in the world. As Admiral of the all-party House of Commons Yacht Club I record the fact with pride.
I have another interest to declare. The Hydrographic Service, broadly speaking, consists of two halves. First, there is the seagoing Surveying Service which is a specialist branch of the Royal Navy, with a fleet of a dozen or more survey ships, manned by 750 officers and men of the Royal Navy. The other half consists of the shore-based Hydrographic Service, with a headquarters echelon in Whitehall—including the Directorate of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology—and various outlying establishments. There are the Hydrographic School at Devonport, sundry chart depots at Rosyth, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Gibraltar, a Chronometer Section at Herstmonceux and, most numerous and significant, the Hydrographic Department in Taunton in my constituency.
There is a staff there of 800 devoted and competent people, as I know well, and as I am sure the Minister, who knows the establishment, will readily confirm. There are naval officers on the active and retired lists, civil hydrographic officers, cartographic draughtsmen and civil servants of executive and industrial grades. They control the work and equipment of the survey fleet, compile sailing directions and tide tables, light lists and notices to mariners. They compile, draw, revise and maintain 3,500 nautical charts and print, publish and issue for sale these varied and important navigational signposts—surely a formidable undertaking.
The Hydrographic Department prides itself, rightly, on being the oldest branch of the Admiralty, for it was formed 180 years ago. Dalrymple, a civilian, was appointed in 1795. At that time we were a good deal behind the French and the Dutch. I would happily explore the history further but I do not have the time tonight.
The branch has steadily evolved, but its task has been basically unchanged over the years—to chart the waters of the world and, so far as human ingenuity can achieve it, to provide guidance for the safety of
all who pass upon the seas upon their lawful occasions.
I am indeed proud that Taunton and so many of my constituents have been associated with this fine and vital work over the last 35 years. But happy as I am to have a chance to pay these sincere compliments and tributes tonight, in which the whole House will join, that is not my chief purpose in obtaining this opportunity for debate.
Many right hon. and hon. Members—including, no doubt, the Minister, for whose courtesy in being here tonight I am grateful—may have seen the recent correspondence in The Times, in which such distinguished persons as the Director of the Royal Institute of Navigation, the President of the National Institute, and a former Hydrographer of the Navy have voiced great anxiety about the future development of the service. I share it, as I said in my own contribution to that correspondence. So does the House. So should all informed opinion. So must the country.
The Department de jure is in business to serve Her Majesty's Fleet. The diminishing ability of the national economy to support defence services on the scale we have been used to, coupled with the growing scepticism of certain vociferous sections of the electorate as to the relevance of defence in present circumstances, is now placing in jeopardy the ability of the department to continue meeting its de facto commitments to the civil sector.
I can put the problem in a nutshell. The hydrographic task is expanding and will continue to expand, whereas the funds from which it is currently financed


—the Defence Vote—are likely to contract and continue to contract. A new method of funding the Hydrographic Service is therefore needed, free from the pressures of the defence budget. I will spell out the matter in more detail.
For the past 180 years the Royal Navy, as part of its recognised rôle in support of our maritime trade, has carried out hydrographic surveys along our overseas trade routes and the approaches to new ports and anchorages, opening up safe passages in unexplored areas, and so on, all to facilitate the growth of trade with all parts of the world.
The information has been displayed in the unique, world-wide British Admiralty chart series, which has been used not only by our own Mercantile Marine but by the ships of almost all international maritime trading nations. The charts and associated navigation publications have been sold to the purchasers at a fraction, I suppose, of their true cost, perhaps because it was considered to be in the best interests of a maritime trading nation that it should subsidise safe navigation, on which its whole economy depends, and partly because of the very substantial foreign exchange and other earnings, totalling about £2 million a year.
Over the past two decades, however, it has become increasingly apparent that not only is the hydrographic task in support of shipping growing at an alarming rate, due to the rise in the number of tankers and other bulk carriers of very deep draught, which require new surveys of much greater areas than before, but in some respects this requirement was exceeding the needs of the Royal Navy itself. A further burden is, moreover, being placed on the department by the growing interest in undersea mineral resource and exploitation of oil and gas, which call for new types of survey and new types of charts covering our own Continental Shelf.
I can do no better than quote from the 1973 report of the Hydrographer of the Navy, in which he said:
Many of our charts are obsolete. Huge parts of the world's seas remain unsurveyed Thematic maps of the sea-bed hardly exist. Approaches to some of our emerging ports are virtually uncharted. We are not meeting the growing needs of either our yachts, yachtsmen or our fishermen. We are not providing adequately for future navigational techniques. We are not exploiting the enormous oppor

tunities open to us in expanding markets for new products.
All this new activity, so vital to the United Kingdom economy, requires a substantial expansion of the Navy's Hydro-graphic Service—the only national hydrographic service we possess—afloat and in the office at Taunton. Obviously, this expansion cannot be effected from within a contracting defence budget, which hitherto has been its only source of funds.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy announced in a Written Answer in July, to resolve this dilemma the Government have set up an inter-ministerial hydrographic study group with representation from the Department of Trade, the Department of Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and so on, as well as from outside interests such as the Chamber of Shipping. The group is chaired by the Ministry of Defence. Its function has been to assess the total task confronting the country, to identify the true extent of the defence interest in it and the resources needed for that purpose, to quantify the resources needed for the whole task and to consider how the balance of resources should be provided.
I deduce from what has been said in public that the report is not likely to be available for some months yet. My first question is, therefore, to ask the Minister if he will do his best to see that the report is speeded up and made available promptly. The subject is urgent and simply will not brook delay.
One can have no doubt that when the report is available it will confirm the obvious need for the expansion of the Hydrographic Service. This will mean more ships, more men, and an extension at Taunton.
Not having seen the report, I can only guess at the figures involved, but I would imagine that at the outside we are talking about an additional expenditure of £10 million per annum, although the figure could be less.
No doubt the Hydrographic Service could earn a part of this money from commercial users, but that the money must be found there can be no doubt, for this House will surely agree that it is essential that our charts and services should be completely up to date. I heard


a cynical suggestion some time ago that shipping companies should rely upon their insurance. This surely is too ludicrous a suggestion to be entertained for a moment.
Our shipping, now running at 30 million gross tons—we are the third largest maritime nation in the world, and the two ahead of us are tax-haven countries—makes an enormous contribution to our balance of payments. The figure last year was £600 million. The expenditure required to give this industry the best facilities is very small in relation to that figure.
Nor can the world continue to risk shipping losses on the current scale. In 1958 under 300,000 gross registered tons was lost. In 1973 the figure was nearly 1 million tons. Much of that was in areas of little hydrographic knowledge. I think that the public are now deeply worried about the pollution risk which this entails. I would remind the House of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on offshore engineering. In paragraph 119 on safety and security it says:
We were disturbed by the Evidence given to us.… Substantial areas have never been properly surveyed or were surveyed by lead and line over a hundred years ago. The existing facilities for gathering hydrographic information are not sufficient to meet present day civil requirements, particularly those of marine offshore structures and giant tankers.… Undoubtedly the fine work of which the hydrographer is capable needs to be expanded to meet civil needs. We believe that there is serious risk of accident unless urgent action is taken.
It confirms what I have already said.
I turn now to how the funding of this comparatively small additional expense should be accomplished. There are two alternatives. First, indirect funding, a method beloved of accountants and bureaucrats. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have seen something of this method whereby notional costs are split up between various Departments. In some circumstances there is merit in this system. In this case I suggest there would be none. It would be pettifogging and time-wasting, involve extra cost, and accuracy would never be guaranteed. I reject this proposal out of hand.
Second, some of the correspondents, and those who know about these matters,

are now arguing for what one might perhaps call a direct funding system; that is to say, that the Navy should be provided with a separate fund for what is, as I hope I have been able to indicate, now becoming increasingly a non-defence function.
This would be a simple, straightforward solution. It would place control of hydrographic expenditure in the hands of Parliament, which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen might well think is where it should be, while leaving responsibility for hydrographic activity where it is now, with the Navy. In my view, this is the best and proper solution and one which I believe the Public Accounts Committee would endorse.
I truly feel that it is something of a scandal that the matter is still unresolved. It is agreed on all sides that the service must be expanded, and to an extent which can easily be quantified in financial terms. It is urgent that in the national interest the expansion proceeds with no avoidable delay.
Above all else, the House has the duty to establish correct priorities for our national expenditure. We can all argue over energy-consuming projects, and we do. Yet a comparatively trivial expenditure—one-hundredth part of the cost of food subsidies, for example—would, in Admiral Irving's words, transform the whole complex of marine research, exploration and exploitation, and bring forward by several years the economic independence to which we aspire. This depends—for we all know that the 180,000 square miles of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf are crucial to our future wealth and prosperity—upon thorough and systematic exploration and charting of these seas and the oceans beyond.
The second recommendation of the Select Committee was:
We recommend that immediate provision should be made for a substantial increase of ships and equipment for surveying the Continental Shelf".
How right that is!
I am sure that Parliament has only to hear the need defined as I have attempted to define it tonight to say at once "Let this work have the highest priority." I hope that the Minister will say without equivocation that the funds will be made available promptly. This


is a matter which meets Winston Churchill's old adjuration. "Action this day".

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House owes the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) a considerable debt for raising this subject. I am grateful to him for asking me to support him.
I absolutely agree that it is nonsense that many of the activities in the North Sea which now go down to the Ministry of Defence funds should not be put against the Department of Energy account in an age when, rightly or wrongly, defence expenditure as such will be contracting. Therefore, I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the way in which we put the Hydrographic Service to the proper accounts inside the Government. It is basically an accounting operation. I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Government will pay attention to this aspect.
Secondly, what is happening about the important projected deep-ocean research and recovery vessel, the plans of which some of us recently saw at the deep-diving establishment at Alverstoke?

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am grateful to be able to speak for two minutes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on raising this important matter. Like him, I have in my constituency some people who work in the Hydrographer's Department. I realise their deep concern about the future work of the department.
I pay my tribute to the tremendous importance of the department's work over the years, both afloat and in the home establishments. The Admiralty chart is respected and regarded as of the greatest importance as a document because of its accuracy and reliability. Four fifths of the world's merchant fleet use it.
It is essential that we retain a global chart policy. The present policy, as I see it, is that the Admiralty chart should provide world-wide cover for coastal navigation, and enable ships to gain access to parts of the world available to international shipping. As one of the few countries able to do that, we should continue to do it.
The service needs to expand, and not contract. I support my right hon. Friend's statement that a good deal more thought must be given to how to make the service more of a commercial success. I do not believe that we charge enough for the documents we produce. We do not cover their true cost of production. A good deal more thought and energy must go into that aspect.
I want to see an expanding service, something of which we shall continue to be proud for many years.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who was supported with so much genuine concern by his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Hydro-graphic Service.
May I quickly deal with the point about the deep-water rescue vessels. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that the Royal Navy requirement for a vessel for deep-diving operations is under consideration in the defence review. Possible applications of this system are being fully examined in association with the Department of Energy. We are also discussing it with industry.
It is clear that hon. Members are aware of the changing requirements for hydrographic surveying and are rightly concerned that an adequate service should be provided to meet the current commercial, economic and defence needs of the nation.
With his practical experience, the right hon. Member for Taunton does not, of course, need me to tell him about the contribution and work the Hydrographer's Department, with its home in his constituency, makes to the economy and general livelihood of the area. I have seen it myself and been deeply impressed. The department moved there in 1968, and a large proportion of its new entrants have since been recruited locally. Today more than 800 people are employed in the establishment.
We can indeed be justly proud of our Hydrographic Service and its outstanding


naval and civilian staff at all levels. The Admiralty charts and publications compiled and printed for the Royal Navy are available to all mariners. Such diverse users as oilmen, engineers, lawyers, oceanographers and public authorities also obtain information from them. Hydrographic surveys before about 1935 were carried out by hand-lead and line and those prior to about 1960 were by echo-sounder, based on the assumption that the maximum likely draught ship was about 18 metres. Deep-draught vessels now overate with up to 28 metres draught, creating a need for new surveys in many areas, thus increasing the continuing need for updating to identify new or changing obstructions. Clearly, adequate charts are an important aid to good navigation, while the costs of maritime accidents may involve loss of lives, ships and cargoes apart from environmental damage from pollution. To meet these important new demands and to keep pace with modern developments there have indeed been significant advances in both hydrographic technology and survey techniques.
I should like to emphasise that the scale on which the manpower and equipment of the Hydrographic Service has been provided in recent years has necessarily been affected by the constraints of a reducing defence budget. It has also been related primarily to the needs of the defence programme, though we have always also recognised the importance of the Hydrographer's work for the civil community.
The importance of the offshore resource industries to the economic health of the nation is evident to us all. It is also clear that the resources and vast experience, as well as the professional expertise, of the Hydrographic Department has a really valuable contribution to make in this area. Further, hydro-graphic surveying of a kind which the Royal Navy has not previously been called upon to do is now required. To meet this new and important national requirement, surveying effort has already been re-deployed to undertake an extensive geophysical survey of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.
The Hydrographer continues to play a full part in the work of the various international hydrographic organisa-

tions.In particular, the Hydrographer will chair a meeting of the North Sea Hydrographic Commission in this country in April. The aims of this body and of the International Hydro-graphic Bureau are to achieve standardisation and co-ordination of world-wide hydrographic effort.
The Hydrographic Service has been paid for from the Defence Vote to date. Generally speaking, the chart series and associated publications it produced were required by the Navy. The fleet was deployed in most of the areas for which there was a mercantile hydrographic requirement, and the requirement for hydrographic survey was comparable for both interests. Taking account of revenue from charts and other sources, this arrangement has met the interests of all tolerably well for many years. Unfortunately, inflation and rising prices have had their effect and chart prices have had to be raised accordingly, but it is true to say that mariners still get a remarkably good product for their money.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peter Viggers: rose—

Mr. Judd: I am afraid that time is short. I have already given time for other speakers.
This marriage between the military and civil requirements may have been a marriage of convenience, but such arrangements are not always unhappy and the Ministry of Defence is not seeking grounds for divorce, though it is looking at the terms of the marriage settlement.
There are two reasons for this. First, it was no doubt at one time reasonable to assume that warships would be amongst our very largest vessels and would be as far-ranging in where they went as merchant ships. Such an assumption is no longer valid. No surface warship is ever likely to be of the size of some of the new super-tankers and commercial freight carriers and there is no commercial equivalent to the requirements of nuclear submarines. Secondly, the political and strategic responsibilities of this country have obviously markedly changed since the Hydrographic Service was first established at the time of the Napoleonic wars.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for just one moment?

Mr. Judd: I am sorry, but I gave a great deal of time to other hon. Members to speak, and we are rather short of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the position.
There has thus been a developing problem in the way the hydrographic needs of this country as a whole were being met as one function of the rôle of the Royal Navy. It is quite true that the recent defence review has made it imperative that the nature of this problem should be examined. I make no apology for this. Such an examination could, with advantage, have been undertaken some time ago.
From the point of view of the Ministry of Defence, the defence priorities as they effect our need for hydrographic services come out clearly in the statement on the defence review made by my right hon. Friend on 3rd December 1974. He explained, firstly, that NATO will remain the first charge on defence resources, and, secondly, that the level and quality of front-line forces must have priority.
We naturally have no wish, in applying these principles to working out the size and shape of the fleet, to overlook the needs of other users of the Hydrographic Service to the extent that a review of the fleet is bound to include a review of the Naval Hydrographic Service. But the fact is that on the basis of the defence review the fleet will no longer have any major commitments outside the NATO area and will, therefore, no longer have the same requirement to maintain for its own purposes a world-wide charting and surveying organisation. Indeed, with a strict limit on the amount of money available for defence, it can do this only at the expense of its fighting capability. The question, therefore, clearly arises whether, as the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology has recommended in the case of Ministry of Defence assistance to the offshore industry, the surveying requirements of the civil community should henceforth be met by the Royal Navy on a customer contractor basis. As the right hon. Gentleman said, a study group has indeed

been set up to look into the problem and make recommendations, which will include the future funding of the Hydro-graphic Service.
The work of the study group needs to be kept in step with the preparation of the Defence White Paper referred to by my right hon. Friend in his statement. Its report is thus expected to be available in March.
The initial task of the study group has been to identify the defence and civil requirements of hydrographic work over the next decade and to establish what resources in terms of both men and materials would be needed to meet their requirements. The requirements also need to be ranked in order of priority, taking account of safety factors and defence needs, as well as economic and commercial considerations. The group will compare these requirements with the current capacity of the Hydrographic Service and make recommendations.
I would not wish to anticipate this evening what these recommendations will be and cannot, of course, forecast what the Government's view of them may be. As in the main defence review, the Government will, of course, have to take account not only of the ideal requirement, whatever that may be, but also of our overall economic situation.
However, I hope that what I have said will reassure the House, and all those outstanding men and women, to whom the right hon. Gentleman so rightly referred, who work with the service, that, far from the Government underestimating the national importance of the Hydro-graphic Service, its future is being given the most serious and expert consideration available. It will be valuable both to the work of the hydrographic study group, and to the Government when they come to consider its recommendations, to have heard the views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members this evening, because what they have to say is essentially relevant to all the considerations and evaluations now taking place.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.